^53.3 
T 3\5s 


umver^tycf  \iv: 

OCT  8 


ENATE  JOURNAL 

Thirty-fifth  Legislature — Third  Called  Session. 


AUSTIN,  TEXAS,  SATURDAY,  SEPTEMBER  22,  1917. 


PROCEEDINGS 


SEVENTEENTH  DAY. 


Motion  Pictures  Permitted. 


Senate  Chamber, 

Austin,  Texas, 
Saturday,  Sept.  22,  1917. 

The  Senate  met  at  8:45  o’clock  a. 
m.  pursuant  to  adjournment,  and 
was  called  to  order  by  President  Pro 
Tern.  Dean. 

The  roll  was  called,  a quorum 
being  present,  the  following  Sen- 
ators answering  to  their  names: 


Alderdice.  Hopkins. 

Bailey.  Hudspeth. 

Bee.  Johnson  of  Hall. 

Buchanan  of  Bell.  Johnston  of  Harris. 
Buchanan  of  Scurry.  Lattimore. 


Caldwell. 

Clark. 

Collins. 

Dayton. 

Dean. 

Decherd. 

Floyd. 

Gibson. 

Hall. 

Harley. 

Henderson. 


McCollum. 

McNealus. 

Page. 

Parr. 

Robbins. 

Smith. 

Strickland. 

Suiter. 

Westbrook. 

Woodward. 


Prayer  by  the  Chaplain. 

Pending  the  reading  of  the  Jour- 
nal of  yesterday,  the  same  was  dis- 
pensed with  on  motion  of  Senator 
Alderdice. 


Petitions  and  Memorials. 
There  were  none  today. 


Committee  Reports. 
See  Appendix. 


Bills  and  Resolutions. 
There  were  none  at  this  time. 


Senator  McNealus  asked  for  unan- 
imous consent  to  have  the  shades 
above  the  chamber  removed  for  to- 
day in  order  that  there  may  be  suf- 
ficient light  in  the  Chamber  to  per- 
mit the  making  of  pictures  of  the 
trial. 

There  was  objection  by  Senator 
Hopkins. 

Senator  Westbrook  moved  the 
Sergeant  at  Arms  be  instructed  to 
remove  the  shades  from  the  ceiling 
of  the  Senate  Chamber  for  the  pur- 
pose of  permitting  pictures  to  be 
made  of  this  trial. 

The  motion  prevailed. 


Special  Rules  for  Impeachment. 

Proposed. 

Senator  Lattimore  offered  the 
following: 

To  the  Honorable  Senators  of  Texas: 

We,  your  committee  on  Rules  re- 
spectfully submit  for  the  approval  of 
the  Senate  Special  Rule  No.  1 as 
follows: 

When  the  argument  of  Counsel 
for  each  side  shall  have  been  con- 
cluded the  Chair  shall  announce 
the  Senate  is  now  ready  to  vote 
upon  the  Articles  of  Impeachment 
and  shall  direct  the  Secretary  of  the 
Senate  to  read  said  articles  sepa- 
rately and  as  each  article  is  read 
shall  direct  the  Secretary  of  the 
Senate  to  call  the  roll  and  as'  the 
name  of  each  Senator  is  called  he 
shall  arise  in  his  place  and  announce 
his  vote  as  guilty  or  not  guilty. 

When  all  of  said  charges  shall 
have  been  read  and  voted  upon  the 
Chair  shall  appoint  a committee  of 
three  Senators  to  formulate  and 
present  to  the  Senate  for  its  approval 
a formal  judgment  to  be  entered  in 


854 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


the  Journal  and  certified  to  the 
proper  officer. 

DEAN, 

LATTIMORE. 

The  rule  was  read  and  upon  ob- 
jection by  several  Senators  the  same 
was  withdrawn. 


The  Horn*  for  Court  Postponed. 

Senator  Westbrook  made  the 
point  of  order  that  the  hour  for  the 
convening  of  the  Court  had  arrived. 

The  point  of  order  was  sustained. 

Senator  Page  moved  that  the 
morning  session  of  the  Senate  be  ex- 
tended for  ten  minutes  and  the  Court 
postponed  for  the  same  period. 

The  motion  prevailed. 

Senator  Lattimore  made  a state- 
ment relating  to  the  proposed 
Special  Rule  above  shown. 


In  the  Court. 

PROCEEDINGS. 

Saturday,  September  22,  1917./ 
Morning  Session. 

Senate  Chamber,  Austin,  Texas. 

Hon.  W.  L.  Dean,  President  Pro 
Tempore,  presiding. 

(Pursuant  to  adjournment,  the 
Senate,  siting  as  a High  Court  of  Im- 
peachment, reconvened  at  9 o’clock 
a.  m.) 

The  Board  of  Managers  and  their 
Counsel  were  present. 

The  Respondent  and  his  Counsel 
were  present. 

The  Chair:  The  time  having  ar- 
rived for  the  convening  of  the  Court 
of  Impeachment,  the  Sergeant-at 
Arms  will  proclaim  the  convening 
of  the  Court,  and  see  that  the  rules 
with  respect  to  those  entitled  to  the 
privileges  of  the  floor  and  the  bar 
are  enforced. 

Sergeant-at-Arms  (at  the  door  of 
the  Senate):  Oyez;  Oyez!  Oyez!  the 
Senate,  sitting  as  a High  Court  of 
Impeachment  is  now  in  session. 

The  Chair:  Mr.  Hanger. 

Mr.  Hanger:  Mr.  President,  I de- 
sire to  make  a statement  in  the  na- 
ture of  one  of  personal  privilege. 


Senator  Gilbson:  Mr.  President, 
I suggest  that  the  Senator — 

Senator  Bee:  Will  the  Senator 
speak  louder? 

Mr.  Hanger:  Just  a moment. 

Senator  Gibson:  Face  the  audi- 
ence. 

Mr.  Hanger:  Yes,  sir,  you  will 
hear  me. 

Senator  Dayton:  Let’s  have  or- 
der, gentlemen,  we  can’t  hear  him 
unless  we  have  order. 

The  Chair:  Well,  if  the  Senators 
and  the  members  of  the  Court  down 
here  will  help  keep  order,  we  can 
have  it,  otherwise  we  cannot  have  it. 
We  want  order  today,  and  we  must 
have  it,  and  the  Chair  earnestly  re- 
quests every  member  of  th’e  Court  to 
assist  in  trying  to  keep  order. 

Mr.  Hanger:  I desire  to  make  a 
statement  in  the  matter  of  personal 
privilege.  The  remarkable  statement 
appears  in  at  least  two  of  the  pa- 
pers on  the  desks  of  the  Senators 
this  morning  that  I am  no  longer  of 
counsel  in  this  trial.  In  the  Austin 
American  the  statement  is  made  that 
Mr.  Cummings  and  myself  are  no 
longer  of  defense  counsel.  The  un- 
justifiable part  about  it  is  that  by 
simple  inquiry,  either  of  the  Gov- 
ernor, Mr.  Cummings,  or  myself,  the 
falsity  of  the  statement  made  could 
have  been  determined;  but  it  is  pub- 
lished as  a fact  with  the  manifest 
purpose  of  an  attempt  not  only  to 
injure  the  Governor,  but  to  injure 
Mr.  Cummings  and  myself  by  creat- 
ing the  broadcast  impression  that  at 
this  stage  of  this  proceeding  we 
would  desert  the  Governor.  I feel 
like  those  who  know  Mr.  Cummings 
and  me,  whether  they  like  us  or  not, 
will  acquit  us  of  any  such  unworthy 
prompting  as  those.  On  account  of 
this  inclination  to  prolong  the  dis- 
cussion we  saw  yesterday  afternoon 
that  there  was  not  sufficient  time  for 
all  of  us  to  argue  this  case,  much  as 
we  desire  to  do  it.  Responding  to 
the  respect  we  felt  for  the  expression 
of  the  member  of  the  Court  which 
reached  us,  we  bowed  to  what  was 
their  manifest  wish  in  the  premises 
and  made  the  agreement,  which  the 
Chair  knows  about,  with  counsel  on 
the  other  side.  I desire  to  charac- 
terize the  publication  as  it  deserves. 
It  is  nothing  short  of  infamous  and 
false  in  every  particular,  has  no  foun- 
dation, and  was  published  without 
any  due  regard  for  the  facts,  with- 


"5  5 3.^ 


SENAT'E  JOURNAL. 


855 


out  any  investigation,  and  with  a 
manifest  purpose  to  do  an  injury. 
I have  demanded  myself,  of  the  re- 
porter of  one  of  the  papers,  to  know 
his  authority.  He  declined  to  give 
it.  But  I want  to  make  this  state- 
ment, and  to  demand  that  a retrac- 
tion be  made  as  publicly  as  the  false 
statement  has  been  made  this  morn- 
ing, in  the  papers  tomorrow. 

Senator  Bee:  Mr.  President — go 
ahead,  Mr.  Cummings. 

Mr.  Cummings:  Mr.  President. 

The  Chair:  Mr.  Cummings. 

Mr.  Cummings:  I simply  want  to 
concur  in  what  Senator  Hanger  has 
stated,  and  add  this:  that  the  dignity 
of  this  occasion  prevents  me  from 
expressing  my  true  opinion  of  the 
men  who  wrote  the  articles;  but  at 
another  time  and  in  another  place 
I shall  avail  myself  of  the  occasion. 

Senator  Bee:  Mr.  President. 

The  Chair:  Mr.  Bee. 

Senator  Bee:  I remarked  during 
the  session  yesterday  that  I thought 
it  was  a pity  that  we  should  limit 
argument  in  this  case — in  a case  of 
this  magnitude  and  of  this  character. 
I have  participated,  as  have  other 
Senators,  in  many  trials  of  men  for 
their  lives  and  their  liberties,  and  in 
capital  felonies  especially — and  this 
bears  a similarity  to  it — there  has 
never  been  within  my  experience  any 
effort  to  limit  the  argument  that 
counsel  might  make.  I am  not  go- 
ing to  make  a motion  at  this  time, 
but  I want  to  suggest  to  those  who 
advocated  the  limitation  of  four 
hours  to  a side,  upon  a question  of 
the  most  tremendous  moment  and 
importance  within  the  great  history 
of  this  State,  if  we.  ought,  in  view  of 
the  statement  made  by  those  gentle- 
men, to  render  it  impossible  that 
these  gentlemen  who  have  been  with 
this  trial  from  its  inception,  acquain- 
ted with  it  in  all  of  its  details,  should 
not,  for  the  sake  of  time,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, that  fleets  and  goes,  time  in 
which  men  go  back  to  their  voca- 
tions, and  the  result  of  this  judg- 
ment will  live  in  the  history  of  this 
State,  time  because  some  man  wants 
to  get  to  a vote — I am  going  to  ask 
the  Senate,  not  in  the  shape  of  a mo- 
tion— because  I have  no  control — if 
it  is  too  late  to  permit  the  gentle- 
men who  have  devoted  themselves  to 
the  conduct  of  the  trial  of  this  case, 
to  state  to  this  Senate,  sitting  not, 
Mr.  President,  as  a jury,  but  as  the 


highest  court  known  to  any  land — 
a High  Court  of  Impeachment,  these 
gentlemen  should  not  be  denied  the 
opportunity  because  of  a few  fleet- 
ing hours  to  state  to  this  Court  their 
conclusions  and  their  jqrdgment  as 
to  the  momentous  issues  involved 
herein.  If  it  is  not  the  wish  of  the 
Senate  that  that  be  done,  I pursue 
the  inquiry  no  further,  but  I con- 
clude by  stating,  that  so  far  as  I 
am  concerned,  regardless  of  the  sac- 
rifice of  business  and  of  time,  this 
High  Court  of  Impeachment  ought 
not  to  differ  from  the  rules  that  the 
district  judges  apply  in  their  courts 
of  free  and  unlimited  argument  of 
questions  involved.  If  the  Senate 
does  not  wish  it  that  way,  I place 
myself  on  record  in  advocacy  of  no 
limitation  upon  the  time  in  which 
the  gentlemen  on  either  side  of  this 
question  shall  present  their  argu- 
ments. 

Senator  Henderson:  Mr.  Chair- 

man, I would  like  to  state  to  the  Sen- 
ator, my  understanding  was  an  agree 
ment  had  been  made  among  Counsel 
as  to  the  time  they  desired,  as  stated 
this  morning. 

Senator  Bee:  I understand  that 
perfectly,  but  I only  wanted  to  make 
this  statement. 

Mr.  Hanger:  Mr.  President. 

The  Chair:  Senator  Hanger  de- 
sires to  make  a statement 

Mr.  Hanger:  I desire  to  make  a 
statement,  that  in  making  the  state- 
ment I made,  it  was  not  intended  in 
any  way  to  alter  the  arrangement  al- 
ready made;  two  speeches  have  al- 
ready been  made  with  that  arrange- 
ment and  agreement  in  view,  and  it 
would  not,  as  we  understand  it,  be 
exactly  appropriate,  appreciating,  as 
much  as  we  do,  the  generous  sug- 
gestion of  the  Senator  from  Bexar, 
that  would  not  be  appropriate  with 
the  argument  practically  half  con- 
cluded, to  change  the  arrangement 
entered  into  by  agreement  of  coun- 
sel on  the  opposing  side  and  ourselves 
on  yesterday  afternoon.  It  was  only 
to  make  manifest  to  all  those  here, 
and  to  those  who  might  know  of 
these  proceedings,  and  to  those  who 
have  heard  these  proceedings  that 
there  had  not  been  any  cessation  of 
the  labor  of  love  undertaken  by  us 
a few  weeks  ago. 

Senator  Page:  Mr.  President. 

The  Chair:  Senator  Page. 

Senator  Page:  In  view  of  what 


856 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


counsel  stated,  I would  like  to  make 
this  statement  in  deference  to  Mr. 
Hanger  and  Mr.  Cummings.  I desire 
to  say  that  at  the  proper  time  I and 
other  Senators  here  will  propose  to 
make  an  investigation,  calling  before 
us  or  this  Senate,  the  reporters  rep- 
resenting the  different  papers  in  this 
Senate,  and  we  will  .require  of  them 
to  state  to  us  the  man  who  has  made 
public  this  statement  which  Mr.  Han- 
ger has  characterized  as  untrue — and 
which  I acept  as  untrue,  and  thought 
was  untrue  when  I read  it  in  the  pa- 
per. It  would  be  improper  for  this 
Court  now  probably  to  do  it,  but 
later  on  we  will  do  that,  and  it  will 
be  my  idea  to  exclude  from  the  floor 
of  this  Senate,  in  so  far  as  we  may, 
the  reporter  who  has  so  offended  and 
who  made  that  statement,  and  let 
him  give  the  facts,  or  give  us  his  in- 
formant, and  if  he  gives  us  the  name 
of  his  informant,  we  will  deal  with 
him  as  we  can.  I- desire  to  make  that 
statement. 

The  Chair:  All  right,  gentlemen, 
with  those  explanations,  are  you 
ready? 

Thereupon,  the  Respondent, 

JAMES  E,  FERGUSON. 

addressed  the  Court  in  his  own  be- 
half, as  follows,  to  wit: 

Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the 

Senate: 

A long  time  ago,  wlien  I was  a 
school  boy,  I remember  to  have  read 
a little  rhyme  that  read  something 
like  this: 

“It  is  easy,  when  destiny  proves 
kind 

“With  full  spread  sail,  to  run  be- 
fore the  wind 

“But  those  who  against  stiff  gales 
would  careering  ^o 

“Must  be  at  once  resolved  and 
skilful  too.” 

So,  this  morning,  as  I appear  be- 
fore this  august  body,  and  as  I ap- 
pear as  the  chief  actor  in  this  mo- 
mentous proceeding,  in  which  not 
only  you,  under  your  official  oaths 
are  deeply  concerned,  but  through- 
put the  confines  of  this  great  State, 
and  the  great  yeomanry,  and  the 
great  people  who  cause  us  to  say 
that  we  have  got  the  greatest  civ- 
ilization and  the  greatest  State  in 
the  Union,  they,  too,  are  interested 
in  the  results  of  this  trial  and  the 


effect  upon  history  which  shall 
come  after  us;  and  realizing  and 
imbued  with  the  deep  solemnity  of 
this  occasion,  I appreciate  the  great 
necessity  not  only  of  not  trying  to 
deceive  you,  but  of  trying  to  deceive 
myself.  I think  I appreciate,  my 
friends,  what  I am  up  against,  just 
the  same  as  you  do,  and  I arrogate 
to  myself  no  particular  qualifica- 
tion of  intelligence  by  stating  that 
fact,  because  he  who  runs  might 
read.  For  the  last  few  weeks  the 
plain  issue  and  the  plain  result  that 
weeks  ago  had  been  intended  and 
designed  by  some;  and  if  this 
Senate  shall  not  carry  out  that  inten- 
tion and  that  design,  then  the 
great  interests  in  Texas  will  be 
very  much  disappointed,  and  in  their 
opinion  a great  mistake  will  have 
occurred.  I say  this  devoid  of  all 
bitterness.  I realize  the  condition 
and  you  realize  the  condition  under 
which  this  accusation  has  been 
brought  against  me,  and  you  under- 
stand, and  I know  you  understand, 
and  I want  you  to  know  I under- 
stand just  as  much  as  you,  and  I 
understand  the  conditions.  In  my 
younger  days  I might  have  given 
away  to  temper  and  permitted  my- 
self to  become  excited  and  moved  to 
exclamations  of  bitterness  and  epi- 
thets, but  as  we  grow  older,  you 
know,  we  become  nearer  being  phi- 
losophers, and  this  morning,  not- 
withstanding that  I know  the  ver- 
dict that  you  are  .going  to  write, 
whilst  there  are  some  phases  about 
it  which  I might  regret  and  you 
would  regret  if  you  were  in  my  po- 
sition, yet,  let  us  not  deceive  our- 
selves. History  is  not  so  much,  my 
friends,  the  recording  chronological- 
ly of  this  or  that  fact,  but  it  is  in 
determining  the  influence  Of  this 
fact  or  that  fact  upon  the  age  in 
which  it  occurred,  or  posterity 
which  will  feel  its  influence  in  after 
years.  And  so,  my  friends,  this 
morning,  let  us  dismiss,  if  we  may, 
the  personal  equation  involved,  let 
us  decide  this  question  and  consider 
it  as  men  ought  to  consider  it;  it 
is  only  by  that  means  that  you  can 
perform  your  duty  to  yourself,  or 
that  I may  discharge  my  duty  to 
myself.  What  are  the  conditions 
which  confront  your  respondent  at 
this  time  If  a man  down  in  the 
Travis  County  Court  should  be  tried 
if  he  should  be  charged  with  a 
crime  against  the  laws  of  the  State, 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


857 


the  Court  sets  the  day  when  he 
should  reply  and  answer  the  charge 
against  him. 

The  Chair  (interrupting):  Gov- 
ernor, will  you  wait  a minute,  please 
sir?  Mr.  Sergeant  at  Arms,  I wish 
you  would  station  somebody  outside 
that  door  and  see  that  we  have  no 
noise  out  there.  Eject  those  boys, 
or  men,  or  whoever  they  are,  that 
are  making  the  fuss. 

Governor  Ferguson  (resuming): 
The  day  of  trial  would  be  set,  and 
the  defendant  would  appear,  and 
when  the  case  was  to  be  considered 
it  would  be  ascertained  from  ju- 
dicial knowledge  that  the  crime  for 
which  he  must  answer  had  been  pre- 
viously defined  by  the  legislative 
body  of  this  State.  The  way  in 
which  the  jury  should  be  selected 
would  be  ascertained  from  the  books 
previously  enacted  into  law,  and  the 
manner  and  the  mode  of  admitting 
the  evidence  would  be  prescribed 
with  judicial  certainty;  and  when 
that  was  read,,  the  exact  crime  with 
which  he  was  charged  would  also 
be  defined  with  judicial  certainty. 
There  could  be  no  mistake  about 
what  would  constitute  the  crime  for 
which  the  defendant  must  stand 
trial.  The  law  previously  would  not 
have  left  that  to  doubt  or  to  con- 
jecture or  to  discretion;  but  the 
crime  and  what  constituted  the 
crime  would  have  been  determined 
— previously  determined  and  de- 
fined, so  that  there'  could  be  no 
mistake  about  the  charge  which  the 
commonwealth  of  the  State  was 
asking  the  defendant  to  answer. 
When  the  law  was  read  it  would  be 
further  ascertained  that  the  means 
and  manner  and  the  mode  of  trial 
equally  with  the  same  precision  and 
with  the  same  solemnity  had  been 
determined  by  the  law  of  the  land. 
The  qualifications  of  the  jurors  who 
should  sit  upon  the  case  would  have 
previously  as  judicially  certain  been 
made  and  determined  as  constituent 
elements  of  the  crime  itself.  When 
the  jurors  once  file  into  the  jury 
box,  the  humblest  citizen  of  this 
land  would  have  the  right  by  his 
counsel  to  say  to  each  member  of 
the  jury,  and  require  his  answer 
under  oath,  “Have  you  any  bias  in 
favor  of,  or  prejudice  against  the 
defendant?”  And  if  the  juryman 
answered  “Yes,”  would  immediately 
say  that,  “You  are  disqualified  to 
pass  upon  the  merits  of  this  case, 


and  you  will  be  excused.”  And  if 
it  should  be  further  ascertained  that 
any  man  in  the  jury  box  during  the 
pendency  of  the  trial  had  talked 
about  the  case  and  had  expressed 
what  his  verdict  would  be  before  the 
case  had  been  concluded,  the  judge 
of  the  court  would  have  the  right, 
knowing  that  most  judges  would 
exercise  that  right,  to  call  the  juror 
before  the  bar  of  justice  and  admin- 
ister some  punishment  for  contempt. 
I mention  this  to  show  you  with 
what  certainty,  with  what  solemnity 
and  with  what  supreme  respect  for 
the  rights  of  the  citizens,  the  courts 
and  the  legislative  body  of  the  land 
have  provided,  that  every  citizen 
might  enjoy  a fair  and  impartial 
trial  upon  the  merits  of  his  case. 
Every  citizen  of  the  land  has  the 
right  guaranteed  to  him  and  given 
to  him,  and  every  man  charged  with 
crime  throughout  the  confines  of 
this  State  enjoys  the  privileges  of 
those  rights  guaranteed  under  the 
laws  and  Constitution  of  the  State, 
except  one  individual,  and  that  is 
the  Governor  of  the  State  on  trial  for 
his  official  position.  That  leads  me 
to  what  the  lawyers  have  been  say- 
ing in  your  midst  about  the  right  of 
this  Senate  to  try  the  Governor  of 
that  State.  Ah!  it  has  been  said, 
and  will  be  contended  hereafter,  that 
this  is  not  a criminal  case.  Yet,  my 
friends,  if  there  was  any  doubt  about 
it — about  whether  this  is  a criminal 
case  or  not,  every  fairminded  man  must 
yield  that  contention  when  he  heard 
the  special  rule  sent  up  by  the  Sen- 
ator from  Tarrant  this  morning.  The 
rule  was  that  when  this  argument 
is  ended  each  Senator  shall  be  re- 
quired to  rise  in  his  seat  and  vote 
what?  “Aye”  or  “Nay?”  No. 
“Guilty”  or  “Not  Guilty!”  Should 
there  be  any  doubt  in  the  minds  of 
any  fairminded  man  that  I am  on 
trial  as  a criminal  in  your  presence? 
If  that  was  not  true,  why  was  it 
necessary  for  this  Court,  in  order  to 
write  out  its  verdict,  to  have  a 
simple  rule  passed,  that  it  was 
“Guilty”  or  “Not  Guilty?”  Ah!  there 
is  the  crux  in  the  whole  argument! 
The  laws  of  this  State  have  pro- 
vided that  for  every  citizen  of  the 
land,  except  the  Governor  on  trial 
for  his  official  position,  the  form  of 
the  verdict  shall  be  “Guilty”  or  “Not 
Guilty,”  and  yet  me  Legislature  has 
not  given  nor  guaranteed  nor  pro- 


858 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


vided  that  right  to  the  Governor  of 
this  State.  And  so,  as  I say,  it 
brings  us  by  an  object  lesson,  as  it 
were,  to  the  conditions  under  which 
I am  being  tried  before  this  Senate. 
You  guarantee,-  the  law  guarantees 
to  a negro  crap-shooter,  it  guaran- 
tees to  a negro  boot-legger,  it  guar- 
antees to  the  veriest  criminal  in  the 
land,  a full  definition  and  a full  de- 
scription of  the  crime  upon  which 
you  are  going  to  try  him  for  his  lib- 
erty; and,  yet,  I defy  General  Crane 
upon  his  time  coming  to  speak  to 
this  Senate,  to  put  his  hand,  to  put 
his  finger  upon  any  crime  for  which 
the  Governor  of  Texas  may  be  im- 
peached! It  does  not  take  a lawyer 
of  any  great  ability  to  see  that  prop- 
osition. Here  I am  put  upon  trial  for 
an  office  which  all  the  courts  of  the 
land  recognize,  as  private  property, 
just  the  same  as  owning  a farm — it  is 
property,  just  like  anything  'else,  with 
the  constitutional  provision  guaran- 
teed to  me,  as  well  as  to  you,  that  I 
shall  not  be  deprived  of  my  property 
without  due  process  of  law. 

It  now  appears  that  I am  on  trial 
for  my  property  without  any  process 
of  law  having  been  provided,  without 
any  manner  and  mode  of  procedure 
having  been  provided  without  any 
definition  of  the  crime  aforesaid  hav- 
ing been  provided.  I am  here  to  be 
tried  for  the  highest  office  in  the  land 
in  the  face  of  the  fact  that  the  Leg- 
islature, notwithstanding  the  Con- 
stitution provided  that  it  should  do 
it,  has  never  yet  performed  its  duty 
of  providing  a manner  and  a mode 
or  the  causes  for  which  a man  may 
be  impeached  in  Texas.  Senators,  the 
Constitution  says,  “The  Legislature 
shall  provide  by  law  for  the  trial  and 
removal  from  office  of  all  officers  of 
this  State,  the  mode  for  which  have 
not  been  provided  for  in  this  Consti- 
tution.” You  find  that  everybody  else 
has  had  a way  fixed  whereby  they 
can  be  tried  and  the  causes  for  which 
they  may  be  tried,  but  nothing  left 
for  the  Governor.  Why,  I want  to 
call  your  attention  to  Section  24  of 
Article  5 of  the  Constitution:  “Coun- 
ty judges,  county  attorneys,  clerks  of 
the  district  and  county  courts,  -jus- 
tices of  the  peace,  constables,  and 
other  county  officers,  may  be  re- 
moved by  the  judges  of  the  district 
court  for  incompetency,  official  mis- 
conduct, habitual  drunkenness,  or 
other  causes  defined  by  law,  upon  the 


cause  therefor  being  set  forth  in 
writing,  and  the  finding  of  its  truth 
by  a jury.”  Lawyers  of  this  Senate, 
I want  to  put  to  you  this  question: 
Can  you  put  your  hand  upon  the  pro- 
vision of  the  Constitution  or  of  the 
Statute  defined  by  law  for  which  you 
could  impech  the  Governor  of  this 
State?  If  you  can  not  do  that,  then, 
my  friends,  you  are  recreant  to  your 
oath  if  you  undertake  to  exercise  the 
power  or  discretion  not  permitted  by 
the  Constitution  of  this  State.  And 
let  me  say  right  here,  I am  not  going 
to  appeal  to  passion  or  prejudice  or  to 
sympathy.  If  I should  appeal  to  pas- 
sion and  prejudice,  that  might 
cause  you  to  lose  sight  of  the  main 
issue  in  this  case.  If  I appeal  to  sym- 
pathy that  would  be  the  exercise  of 
a right  which  I have  not  and  will  not 
urge  upon  any  Senator.  I want  to 
appear  in  the  language  of  the  Roman 
statesman  who  said  that  in  matters  of 
right  there  was  not  one  law  for  Ath- 
ens, there  was  not  another  for  Greece, 
there  was  not  another  for  Rome,  but 
for  all  men  in  all  ages  and  all  times 
there  remained  the  eternal  law  of  jus- 
tice, and  I appeal  only  to  that  law. 
If  you,  in  the  exercise  of  your  oath, 
convict  me  and  find  me  guilty  of  a 
crime  not  defined  by  law  or  by  the 
Constitution,  then  you  have  denied  to 
me  simple  justice,  you  have  denied  to 
me  the  same  right  that  is  guaranteed 
to  the  most  humble  citizen  in  the  land 
and  the  veriest  criminal  in  the  land. 
Let  them  put  their  finger  upon  a 
single  cause  which  the  Constitution 
decides  shall  be  cause  for  impeach- 
ment. Now,  they  will  say,  well,  I 
have  been  guilty  of  this  and  I have 
been  guilty  of  that.  All  right.  Let’s 
see  if  the  Constitution  says  that  is 
sufficient  ground  for  impeachment. 
Section  8 of  Article  15  provides:  “The 
judges  of  the  Supreme  Court,  Court 
of  Appeals  and  District  Court,  shall 
be  removed  by  the  Governor  on  the 
address  of  tw'o-thirds  of  each  house  of 
the  Legislature” — for  what? — “for 
wilful  neglect  of  duty,  incompetency, 
habitual  drunkenness,  oppression  in 
office,  or  other  reasonable  cause” — - 
listen — “which  shall  not  be  sufficient 
ground  for  impeachment.”  Now, 
catch  the  four  causes;  neglect  of 
duty,  incompetency,  habitual  drunk- 
enness, oppression  in  office.  They  do 
not  charge  me  with  habitual  drunk- 
enness, and  of  course  that  is  cut  out. 
New,  then,  neglect  of  duty.  All  right. 
Let’s  say  for  the  sake  of  argument 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


859 


that  I neglected  my  duty.  Incompe- 
tency. Let’s  admit  for  the  sake  of  ar- 
bument  that  I am  incompetent.  Op- 
pression in  office.  Let’s  admit  for 
the  sake  of  those  who  would  find 
some  satisfaction  in  the  charge  that 
I have  been  oppressive  in  office. 
And  yet,  Senators  sworn  to  uphold 
the  Constitution,  are  you  going  to  say 
that  I shall  he  impeached  for  that 
ground — upon  those  grounds — when 
the  Constitution  says  “or  other  reason- 
able cause,  which  shall  not  be  suf- 
ficient ground  for  impeachment.”  Neg- 
lect of  duty,  incompetency,  and  op- 
pression in  office  will  include  every 
charge  that  has  been  filed  against  me 
by  this  Court.  And  yet,  in  the  face 
of  that,  the  Constitution  of  this  State 
says  that  it  is  not  sufficient  ground 
to  even  remove  a judge  from  his  po- 
sition on  the  bench.  Yet  you  want  to 
take  the  Governor  of  your  State, 
when  your  oath  to  uphold  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  State  binding  upon 
you  as  well  as  upon  me,  when  they 
have  said  in  unmistakable  language., 
that  it  is  not  sufficient  ground  for 
impeachment,  you  are  being  asked  to 
write  a verdict  to  put  the  Governor  of 
this  State  out  of  office  in  the  ab- 
sence of  any  provision  defining  a 
cause  for  which  the  Governor  may  be 
impeached,  and  in  the  face  of  the  ex- 
press provision  which  says  that  the 
things  they  charge  me  with  are  not 
sufficient  grounds  for  impeachment 
Ah!  my  friends,  you  brush  aside  the 
passion  of  the  hour,  you  brush  aside 
the  sentiment  that  has  been  fostered 
here,  you  brush  aside  the  pressure 
that  has  been  brought  to  bear,  and  di- 
vest yourselves  of  all  other  influences 
save  that  of  your  oaths  to  try  impar- 
tially this  case,  this  case  would  not 
last  five  minutes  on  a proposition 
that  the  Constitution  itself  in  unmis- 
takable language  has  declared  that 
everything  that  they  have  charged 
me  with  are  not  sufficient  grounds 
for  impeachment. 

But  I must  pass  on.  I want  to 
discus  with  you  in  a simple  way,  in 
a plain  way,  in  a candid  way,  the 
charges  which  have  been  brought 
against  me.  I realize  that  this  is 
no  time  for  a display  of  temper.  I 
realize  the  gravity  of  the  situation, 
if  you  please,  that  confronts  me, 
and  I realize  that  if  I am  to  be  ex- 
onerated by  this  Senate  it  will  be 
only  in  appealing  to  the  heart  and 
conscience  and  mind  of  every  Sena- 
tor who  is  willing  to  divest  himself 


of  every  passion  or  prejudice  or  sym- 
pathy, bias  or  prejudice  which  he 
may  have  in  the  case,  and  appealing 
to  the  fairminded  man  who  is  seek- 
ing for  the  truth,  who  is  willing  to 
put  his  hand  upon  his  heart  and  say 
that  “My  verdict  upon  this  charge 
or  that  charge  is  one  which  my  con- 
science alone  permits  me  to  render.” 
Now,  my  friends,  before  I go'  into 
the  discussion  of  the  charges  I want 
to  call  your  attention  to  one  astound- 
ing statement  that  was  made  yester- 
day by  the  counsel  for  the  Manag- 
ers, and  I know  you  heard  it  and  I 
know  you  must  have  thought  about 
it,  but  I again  want  to  call  it  to 
your  attention,  because  it  is  the 
crux  of  the  whole  argument  in  this 
case.  Mr.  Harris  told  you  yester- 
day— listen,  refer  to  the  stenograph- 
er’s report  to  see  if  I am  not  correct, 
said,  “We  are  not  asking  the  Sen- 
ate of  Texas  to  impeach  the  Gover- 
nor because  he  did  not  appoint  an- 
other man  in  Frank  Swor’s  place. 
We  are  not  asking  the  Senate” — and 
he  said,  “I  admit  that  is  not  sufficient 
ground  to  impeach  him.  We  are  not 
asking  the  Senate  of  Texas,”  he  said, 
“to  impeach  the  Governor  because  he 
would  not  tell  where  he  borowed  the 
$156,000.  We  are  not  asking  the  Sen^ 
ate  of  Texas  to  impeach  the  Governor 
upon  the  ground  of  that  fifty-six  hun- 
dred dollar  item.  We  are  not  asking 
the  Senate  of  Texas  to  impeach  the 
Governor  upon  any  one  count,  but  it 
is  upon  twenty-one  counts  piled  up 
like  stove  wood.  We  are  going  to 
establish  a grab-net  machine  here  and 
admit  as  we  do  that  none  of  them 
are  sufficient  within  themselves;  on 
general  principles  we  are  going  to 
say  that  the  Governor  of  the  State 
ought  to  be  impeached.”  My  friends 
my  personal  equation  in  this  matter 
need  not  be  considered.  Men  come 
and  men  go;  nations  come  and  na- 
tions go,  but  principles  live  forever. 
It  is  upon  the  principles  of  right  and 
wrong  that  civilization  has  been 
handed  down  to  this  day  and  this 
time,  a civilization  founded  upon 
right  and  upon  wrong.  You  establish 
the  principle  that  the  Governor  of 
this  State  may  be  impeached  upon 
general  principles  and  suspicion,  then 
you  may  put  me  out  of  the  office. 
That  may  or  may  not  be  any  matter 
of  consequence.  But  once  you  estab- 
lish that  rule  you  deprive — thwart  the 
very  will  of  the  Constitution  which 
divided  the  government  into  three 


860 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


branches:  executive,  legislative  and 
judicial — and  the  idea  of  checks  and 
balances  so  much  festered  and  be- 
lieved in  by  our  forefathers  will  have 
been  brushed  to  the  winds  and  no  man 
will  be  safe  in  the  Governor’s  office 
except  by  the  whim  of  the  Legislature 
which  he  must  serve.  Those  are  facts 
whether  you  acquit  me  or  not,  it  is  a 
matter  of  no  consequehce  to  me.  I 
am  here  to  call  your  attention  to  the 
fact,  not  for  my  personal  ambition, 
because  that  may  be  brushed  aside; 
I have  the  right  to  call  these  atten- 
tions to  your  mind  and  conscience, 
then,  if  you  brush  it  aside  and  say 
that  “I  will  not  be  bound  by  that  rule 
of  right  and  wrong;  I will  not  be 
bound  by  the  provisions  of  my  Con- 
stitution,” that  becomes  no  more  a 
matter  with  me,  it  is  a metier  with 
you  and  your  conscience  to  be  settled 
with  you  and  your  God. 

Now,  my  friends,  let’s  discuss  the 
issues.  The  first  charge  is  that  there 
was  paid  from  the  funds  of  the  Can- 
yon City  Normal  School  deposited 
with  the  Temple  State  Bank  on  Au- 
guest  23,  1915,  a note  of  $5000  to- 
gether with  $650  interest  due  by 
James  E.  Ferguson  to  the  First  Na- 
tional Bank  of  Temple,  Texas;  that 
said  amount  has  never  been  refunded 
to  the  State  of  Texas;  that  in  part 
payment  of  the  total  due  for  the 
building  of  the  Canyon  City  Normal 
College  he  used  other  funds,  a por- 
tion of  which  belonged  to  the  State 
of  Texas  and  the  balance  in  his  hands 
as  Governor  and  deposited  to  his 
credit  as  Governor  in  the  American 
National  Bank,  which  act  constitutes 
& violation  of  law.  If  there  is  a Sen- 
ator in  this  Senate  of  any  known  te- 
rgal ability  who  would  claim  for  one 
minute  that  the  allegations  in  that 
statement  would  support  an  indict- 
ment or  an  information  against  any 
defendant,  then  I mistake  the  judg- 
ment and  the  legal  ability  of  any 
lawyer  of  any  known  ability.  It  does 
not  charge  me  with  any  crime  or  any 
bad  intention.  They  say  it  consti- 
tutes a violation  of  the  law.  Then 
let  them  say  what  law  it  is.  But 
let’s  waive  any  technical  defense.  I 
want  to  brush  it  all  aside  and  state 
the  proposition  that  should  control 
your  verdict  upon  that  ground — 
upon  that  charge — and  that  is:  “Did 
the  Governor  of  Texas  intend  to  steal 
$5600  or  $600  or  any  part  of  that 
sum?”  I throw  down  the  gauntlet 


and  I say  that  that  is  the  issue  for 
you  to  determine.  If  you  believe  deep 
down  in  your  heart  as  the  result  of 
your  honest  conviction  that  I as  the 
Governor  of  the  State  intended  to 
steal  or  convert  to  my  use  and  ben- 
efit any  part  of  that  sum  of  money, 
then  I release  you,  whether  you  have 
been  my  friend  or  not,  to  vote  to 
sustain  that  charge — from  any  obli- 
gation to  me — and  if  you  believe  that 
why,  then  you  vote  to  sustain  that 
.charge.  If.  on  the  other  hand,  you 
have  any  doubt  about  it,  if  you  do 
not  believe  the  Governor  of  the  State 
intended  to  steal  $5600  or  any  part 
thereof,  then  you  violate  your  oaths 
to  your  God  and  to  your  country 
when  you  place  a stigma  upon  my 
name  and  vote  to  sustain  that  charge. 
and  the  issue  is  one  plainly  to  be  de- 
termined, whether  it  was  theft  or 
not — I mean  whether  embezzlement 
or  not,  because  we  admit  it  was  right- 
fully in  my  possession.  Now,  then, 
let’s  see  if  I intended  to  embezzle 
that  amount  of  money.  When  a man 
goes  out  to  commit  a crime  he  con- 
siders, if  he  is  a man  of  ordinary 
intelligence — and  without  any  spirit 
of  seeking  to  brag,  I believe  I might 
with  perfect  propriety,  without  tran- 
scending any  rule  of  modesty,  claim 
that  I am  a man  of  at  least  average 
intelligence.  Therefore  I say  when  a 
man  of  average  intelligence  goes  out 
to  embezzle  a sum  of  money  he  con- 
siders the  crime,  he  considers  not  only 
what  he  is  about  to  do,  but  the  main 
thing  he  would  naturally  consider 
would  be  the  probability  of  escaping 
detection  and  the  matter  being  found 
out.  Now,  then,  take  that  rule  and 
apply  it  to  the  fifty-six  hundred  dol- 
lar item.  I had  given  Governor  Col- 
quitt my  receipt  for  every  dollar  of 
the  Canyon  City  fund.  Bad  man  as 
I might  be — and  some  of  them  would 
have  you  think  I am — certainly  I 
could  not  have  been  so  foolish  to 
have  thought  I might  use  that  money  ' 
to  my  permanent  use  and  benefit 
without  being  found  out.  It  is  ri- 
diculous, and  you  know  it  as  well  as 
I,  that  I for  a minute  could  have 
thought,  that  I could  have  secaped 
detection,  with  a receipt  behind  me 
on  one  hand,  and  the  building  about 
to  be  completed  and  the  money  be- 
ing called  for  on  the  other.  It  is 
absurd  to  think  any  reasonable  man 
could  have  hoped,  bad  a man  as  I 
might  have  been,  could  have  hoped 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


861 


( 


that  he  could  have  escaped  detection 
and  that  a crime  could  have  been 
successfully  committed.  So  that  is 
the  issue  in  that  fifty-six  hundred 
dollars.  It  is  not  a question  of  book- 
keeping. Certainly  the  Senate  is  lib- 
eral enough  that  you  would  not  im- 
peach the  Governor  of  this  State  be- 
cause the  books  had  not  been  kept 
straight.  But,  again,  the  charge 
ticket — now,  if  I was  going  to  con- 
vert the  money  to  my  own  use  and 
benefit,  do  you  suppose  that  I would 
have  been  so  foolish  as  to  have  in- 
structed the  Temple  State  Bank  to 
charge  my  personal  note  to  the  Gov- 
ernor’s account  and  to  have  put  on 
the  very  charge  ticket  itself  that  it 
was  for  the  note  which  I owed  the 
First  National  Bank  of  Temple  and 
had  them  to  make  a record  of  it  and 
send  it  down  to  me  in  Austin?  Gen- 
tlemen, if  you  will  brush  aside  pas- 
sion and  prejudice,  you  are  bound  to 
admit  that  the  very  way  and  the 
manner  and  mode  in  which  that 
transaction  occurred  would  convince 
you  that  it  was  simply  a mistake,  an 
erroneous  mistake  and  an  honest 
mistake.  Why,  if  I had  wanted  to 
put  that  money  to  my  use  and  benefit 
all  I would  have  had  to  have  done 
to  absolutely  cover  it  up  so  nobody 
could  have  told  anything  about  it 
would  have  been  to  have  gone  to  the 
counter  of  the  Temple  State  Bank 
and  issued  my  check  as  Governor  for 
the  amount,  put  it  in  my  pocket  and 
used  it  as  I desired  until  the  time 
came  to  pay  it  back,  and  nobody 
could  ever  have  known  anything 
about  what  purpose  the  money  was 
used  for.  You  know  that,  gentle- 
men, as  well  as  I do,  and  that  ac- 
counts for  the  astounding  statement 
made  by  Mr.  Harris  and  the  frank 
admission  made  by  him.  They  are 
not  asking  you  to  impeach  your  Gov- 
ernor upon  the  ground  of  that  fifty- 
six  hundred  dollar  item  alone,  but 
because  it  is  a part  of  a junk  pile 
they  want  to  unload  on  you,  they  say 
that  you  ought  to  impeach  the  Gov- 
ernor. 

Now,  my  friends,  you  are  not  go- 
ing to  agree  to  any  such  proposition 
that  you  can  consider  that  altogeth- 
er. They  won’t  let  you  vote  on  them 
all  together.  The  rule,  it  is  recog- 
nized, that  you  have  got  to  come  into 
court  and  arise  in  your  seat  with  the 
obligation  of  your  oath  before  you, 
and  vote  upon  your  consciences, 


whether  this  charge  number  one  is 
sufficient,  whether  I am  guilty  or  not 
guilty.  And  if  you  determine  in  your 
mind  that  that  one  indictment  is  not 
sufficient,  you  have  got  no  right  to 
vote  guilty  upon  that  charge,  because 
you  might  think  I have  been  guilty 
of  some  other  wrong  in  some  other 
proposition.  You  know  that  that 
admission  would  ‘put  them  out  of 
court  in  any  criminal  proceeding  in 
this  country,  when  a man  would  ad- 
mit that  the  proof  was  not  sufficient 
upon  any  one  count  of  the  indictment 
to  have  a conviction  upon  that  count. 
Now,  my  friends,  they  say  that  the 
money  was  never  returned  to  the 
State  of  Texas.  I asked  them  this 
question,  if  the  $5  600  has  never  been 
returned  to  the  State  of  Texas,  then 
where  is  it  today,  in  whose  posses- 
sion is  it,  who  has  got  it  and  who 
owed  it  to  the  State;  if  the  State  has 
never  received  the  $5600  back  then 
someone  else  must  have  it.  All  right, 
you  say  the  Governor  has  got  it.  All 
right,  put  your  hand  upon  the  obli- 
gation to  say  I have  had  it;  put  your 
hand  upon  the  proof  that  shows  I 
have  it.  You  can’t  do  it,,  and  when  I 
came  to  settle  with  Governor  Hobby 
as  Acting  Governor  of  the  State,  and 
turned  over  to  him  funds  in  my 
hands,  if  the  $5600  has  never  been 
returned  to  the  State,  then  it  was 
my  duty  to  turn  it  over  to  him,  it 
was  his  duty  to  demand  that  I turn 
it  over  to  him — that  $5600  was  still 
in  my  possession  when  I was  still 
Governor  of  the  State  and  settled 
with  Governor  Hobby.  When  I filed 
my  answer  here  and  said  I didn’t 
owe  the  State  of  Texas  anything,  then 
counsel  would  have  had  the  right  to 
file  a charge  and  say,  no,  your  state- 
ment is  not  correct,  you  have  still 
got  $5600  of  the  people’s  money  in 
your  possession,  give  it  up.  Oh,  this 
$5  600  item  that  has  been  clouding 
somebody’s  mind,  the  very  time  that 
this  charge  was  filed,  as  paid  back  to 
the  State,  and  paid  to  whom?  It  was 
part  of  a fund  belonging  to  the  Can- 
yon City  Normal  fund.  Nobody  de- 
nies that  up  to  the  time  that  deposit 
was  made,  that  any  other  than  the 
Canyon  City  fund  had  been  placed  in 
the  Temple  State  Bank,  and  when  the 
final  money  was  paid,  $101,607  was 
paid  to  the  State,  then  every  dollar 
of  the  Canyon  City  mone3’-  was  re- 
turned to  the  State,  and  this  charge 
that  said  money  has  never  been  re- 


862 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


turned  to  the  State  must  be  incorrect 
and  there  is  not  a scintilla  of  evi- 
dence to  show  but  what  it  is  incor- 
rect. Listen,  when  I settled  with 
Governor  Hobby  I turned  over  every 
dollar  in  my  hands.  They  don’t 
question  and  won’t  question  that 
there  is  another  nickel  remaining  in 
my  hands  except  for  the  following 
purpose:  “Received  of  James  E.  Fer- 
guson, formerly  Governor  of  Texas, 
the  sum  of  $4693.49,”  listen — “same 
being  $1546.85  to  the  credit  of  the 
King’s  Highway  Fund,  $30.60  to  the 
credit  of  the  Storm  Refund  Fund, 
and  $3116.40  to  the  credit  of  the 
Texas  National  Guard  Funds,  now 
in  the  hands  of  the  said  James  E. 
Ferguson,  and  same  is  received” — 
listen — “same  is  received  by  me,  Act- 
ing Governor,  from  the  said  James 
E.  Ferguson.”  A clear  receipt  for 
every  dollar  that  ever  came  into  my 
hands  as  Governor  of  this  State.  The 
$5600  paid  back  to  the  State  in  April 
last  year;  no  fund  remaining  in  my 
hands  except  these  funds  for  which 
he  receipted  me,  but  they  say  I did 
not  turn  it  over  to  the  State.  Now, 
listen:  it  is  admitted  that  the  King’s 
Highway  Fund  and  Storm  Refund 
Fund  was  private  money.  No  man 
has  contended  or  will  contend,  or  can 
contend  that  it  is  a part  of  the  State 
money.  Therefore,  I could  not  be 
convicted  for  not  turning  that  fund 
over  to  the  State.  Oh,  but  they  say 
there  is  $3116  National  Guard  fund. 
It  gets  back  to  the  same  proposition; 
did  the  Governor  of  this  State  in- 
tend to  steal  any  part  of  that  fund, 
or  embezzle  it,  or  put  it  to  his  use 
and  benefit?  Now  then,  I told  the 
Legislature  in  January  of  this  year, 
reported  to  them  that  I had  this 
money  and  in  March  when  I was  upon 
the  stand  I told  them  again  about  it. 
It  was  a matter  of  discussion  and 
within  the  knowledge  of  everybody. 
The  Legislature  did  not  direct  what 
should  be  done  with  the  fund,  there- 
fore what  could  I do  with  the  money 
but  keep  it?  I could  not  throw  it 
in  the  creek,  I could  not  put  it  in 
the  Treasury,  because  there  was  no 
fund  to  which  you  could  put  it.  You 
couldn’t  put  it  in  the  Highway  or  the 
Storm  fund  because  that  was  private 
facts  about  the  $5600  item. 

Now,  the  next  charge  is  that  I 
had  $101,000  of  the  Canyon  City 
fund;  that  I aplied  it  to  my  own 
use  and  benefit  in  that  1 deposited 


part  of  it  in  the  Temple  State  Bank. 
Now,  my  friends,  I want  to  call  your 
attention  right  here  to  facts  that  cer- 
tainly bear  upon  the  question  of 
whether  I wanted  to  profit  out  of 
that  money.  When  the  first  deposit 
was  sent  to  Temple,  opening  up  the 
Governor’s  account,  I had  the  secre- 
tary to  write  a letter  and  which  was 
exhibited  here  after  an  attempt  to 
withhold  it  from  your  information, 
had  been  made,  stating  “I  simply 
want  you  to  keep  this  money  on  de- 
posit, don’t  you  undertake  to  make 
any  loans  on  account  of  that  de- 
posit,” meaning  of  course  not  only 
that  deposit  but  the  rest  of  the  items 
which  made  up  that  deposit.  If  I 
had  wanted  to  profit  by  it  certainly 
I would  not  have  written  that  letter 
to  my  own  private  bank  telling  them 
explicitly  not  to  loan  any  money 
against  that  account.  But  they  say 
I did  not  put  it  in  the  Treasury. 
There  is  the  great  issue  made  in  this 
case.  I can  deal  with  all  the  other 
charges  in  reference  to  the  Secretary 
of  State,  in  reference  to  the  Com- 
missioner of  Insurance  and  Banking, 
in  reference  to  this  fund  I can  treat 
that  question  altogether  and  in  the 
interest  of  time  I will  do  so.  Now, 
they  say  that  I should  put  it  in  the 
Treasury,  and  they  say  that  I vio- 
lated Article  96  of  the  Criminal 
Code,  which  provides — listen!  that 
any  agent  of  the  government  who  is 
by  law  a receiver  or  depositary  of 
money,  or  who  shall  fail  to  put 
money  in  the  Treasury  when  it  is 
open,  shall  be  guilty  of  a felony, 
with  such  and  such  a penalty.  Now, 
then,  as  I say,  here  in  the  great 
crime:  when  I came  to  Austin  what 
did  I find  here?  I found,  as  1 
stated  in  my  testimony,  and  it  has 
not  been  denied  in  any  particular 
here,  that  for  twenty  years  nobody 
had  paid  any  attention  to  the  statute 
— because,  why,  the  Supreme  Court, 
the  Attorney  General,  the  Secretary 
of  State  and  the  other  officials  who 
as  incidental  to  their  duties  came 
into  possession  of  money  were  not 
by  law  receivers  or  depositaries  of 
money,  and  therefore  that  act  could 
not  apply  to  them;  the  receipt  of 
their  money  was  only  an  incident 
to  the  other  duties  of  their  offices. 
Therefore,  even  though  for  the  sake 
of  argument  it  might  be  considered 
it  had  been  wrongfully  done,  as  long 
as  it  was  done  by  an  officer  of  the 
government — unless  it  was  done  by 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


863 


an  officer  of  the  government  who 
was  a receiver  or  depositary  of 
money  it  could  be  no  violation  of 
law.  But,  oh,  they  say,  I ought  to 
have  kept  the  Secretary  of  State 
from  putting  that  money  in  any 
bank,  and  that  shows  just  how  un- 
reasonable the  charges  are.  They 
contend  in  one  breath  that  I ought 
to  be  impeached  because  I under- 
took to  tell  the  Board — suggest  to 
the  Board  of  Regents  what  it  should 
do,  and  in  the  next  breath  they  say 
I ought  to  be  impeached  because  I 
did  not  tell  some  officer  of  the  gov- 
ernment what  he  should  not  do;  in 
one  breath  they  say  it  is  a crime  to 
try  to  suggest  to  the  head  of  a de- 
partment what  he  should  do;  in  the 
next  breath  they  say  it  is  a crime 
and  you  ought  to  be  impeached  be- 
cause you  failed  to  tell  some  fellow 
what  he  ought  to  do.  The  whole 
proposition  is,  this  whole  charge  and 
this  whole  thing  is  founded  upon 
one  fact,  that  I put  that  money  in 
a Temple  bank  and  not  in  an  Austin 
bank.  I wouldn’t  be  on  charge  here 
today  if  the  Austin  bankers  and  the 
University  crowd  had  not  got  to- 
gether and  said,  “This  man  won’t 
do;  he  has  come  down  to  Austin 
here,  he  has  undertook  to  exercise 
the  rights  given  to  him  under  the 
Constitution  to  inquire  into  what  we 
are  doing  out  at  the  University;  he 
has  undertook  to  say  that  this  right 
which  we  have  so  long  enjoyed  here 
in  Austin  to  have  all  the  people’s 
money  for  our  use  and  benefit  can 
not  continue;  we  can  not  have  any 
such  usurper  of  our  sources  of  gain 
and  orofit.”  Then  they  begin  to  get 
together,  and  this  thing  begun  to 
start.  That  is  the  whole  crime.  It 
does  not  make  any  difference,  gen- 
tlemen, whether  I*  owned  stock  in 
that  bank  or  not.  It  is  back  to  the 
simple  question  of  whether  I had 
the  right  to  put  the  money  in  the 
bank  until  such  time  as  it  was  re- 
quired by  law: 

Why,  you  say  that  that  is  a crime 
because  I had  stock  in  the  bank.  No- 
body ever  considered  it  so.  The  Uni- 
versity itself,  as  the  record  shows, 
had  on  deposit  with  the  American  Na- 
tional Bank  in  Austin  an  account  run- 
ning for  four  long  years,  and  I stated 
that  I had  been  informed  that  it  had 
been  running  for  ten  years  before 
that,  and  that  was  not  denied,  show- 
ing what?  That  they  had  an  account 
there  running  never  lower  than  $38,- 


000.00,  and  up  to  as  high  as  $157,000.- 
00,  a continuous  account  that  the  Uni- 
versity people  had  had  for  four  long 
years,  and  nobody  ever  got  together 
and  concocted  a plan  to  indict  some- 
body or  impeach  somebody  for  putting 
that  money  into  the  American  Na- 
tional Bank  of  Austin  without  inter- 
est. It  is  a great  crime  to  put  money 
into  the  Temple  Bank,  but  a member 
of  the  Board  of  Regents,  Major  Little- 
field, who  owns  only,  not  one-fourth 
of  the  stock  in  the  bank,  like  I did, 
but  who  owned  the  controlling  inter- 
est in  the  American  National  Bank, 
in  Austin,  he  is  permitted  to  do  that 
and  is  held  up  as  a great  citizen 
when  he  takes  the  money  of  the  Uni- 
versity and  puts  it  for  four  long 
years  in  his  bank,  without  interest, 
a continuous  and  profitable  account. 
And  yet,  because  I,  owning  a minor- 
ity of  the  stock  in  the  bank  for  no 
account  and  no  profit,  put  for  thirty 
or  fifty-five  days  a large  deposit  in 
the  Temple  State  Bank,  a great  idea 
of  right  and  wrong  gets  into  the 
minds  of  some  people  and  you  are 
here  called  upon  to  rend  in  twain  the 
character  and  reputation  of  the  Gov- 
ernor of  Texas  for  doing  a thing 
which  the  University  itself  has  done 
for  these  long  years.  And  yet,  some  of 
you  are  going  to  do  it;  you  haven’t 
got  the  nerve  to  stand  up  in  the  maj- 
esty of  your  manhood  and  say,  “I  will 
not  make  flesh  of  one  and  foul  of 
the  other.”  You  haven’t  got  nerve 
enough  to  say,  you  are  not  fair 
enough  to  say,  that  what  one  man  has 
done  is  no  more  a crime  that  what 
another  man  has  done!  The  man 
owning  the  majority  of  the  stock  of 
a bank,  Littlefield’s  bank,  $157,000.00, 
an  average  balance  of  $185,000.00  for 
four  years,  without  interest,  a great 
citizen,  a member  of  the  Board  of  Re- 
gents, honored  and  respected  by  them, 
and  held  up  to  the  citizens  of  Texas 
as  a great  man!  And  yet,  Jim  Fer- 
guson, a criminal,  a felon,  that  ought 
to  be  rended  in  twain,  to  satisfy  the 
passion  and  prejudice  of  the  hour, 
simply  because  $250,000.00  stayed  in 
his  bank  for  forty-five  days!  Ah! 
your  case  would  not  last  thirty  min- 
utes if  the  passion  and  prejudice  and 
politics  that  are  in  this  case  were 
brushed  aside  and  this  case  were 
tried  upon  the  oaths  of  men  who 
would  seek  to  do  their  duty  between 
man  and  man. 

And  that  brings  us  to  the  big  ques- 
tion, the  University.  There  is  but 


864 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


one  question  in  this  whole  contro- 
versy. Why,  when  John  McKay  was 
indicted  down  here  and  he  told  some 
of  his  friends  that  he  considered  it  an 
outrage,  he  was  told  that  it  was  but 
an  incident  to  the  University  ques- 
tion, and  because  the  Governor  had 
vetoed  the  University  appropriation 
bill.  This  very  same  paper,  the  Aus- 
tin American,  that  this  morning 
printed  that  statement,  that  infamous 
calumny  against  the  character  and 
good  intentions  of  my  friends,  stat- 
ing that  they  had  broken  faith  with 
me,  that  they  were  no  longer  my 
friends,  the  Austin  American,  which 
printed  that  infamous  statement,  had 
told  the  people  of  Austin,  as  their 
mouthpiece,  what  this  great  issue 
was,  and  I want  to  read  it  to  you. 
Under  date  of  August  26th,  Sunday 
morning,  headed,  (reading): 

“The  University  Triumphant. 

“Lieutenant  Governor  W.  P.  Hob- 
by is  now  Acting  Governor  of  Texas, 
and  Governor  James  E.  Ferguson 
stands  suspended  and  is  out  of  office 
pending  his  trial  by  the  Senate  on 
twenty-one  articles  of  impeachment 
adopted  by  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives after  an  investigation  lasting 
ocer  three  weeks.  The  trial  in  the 
Senate  will  begin  next  Wednesday. 
The  investigation  and  the  causes 
leading  up  to  it  have  been  thorough- 
ly discussed  and  are  well  understood, 
and  the  results  obtained  by  the  of- 
ficial vote  in  the  House  and  the  pre- 
sentment of  the  articles  of  impeach- 
ment to  the  Senate  have  brought  to 
the  people  of  Texas  a victory,” 

Listen — 

“And  the  presentment  of  the  ar- 
ticles of  impeachment  to  the  Senate 
have  brought  to  the  people  of  Texas 
a victory  of  such  vast  importance 
that  they  can  afford  to  ignore  any 
criticism  the  outside  world  may 
make.  They  have  saved  the  Univer- 
sity, and  that  was  the  big  question 
involved.” 

Involved  in  what?  In  the  present- 
ment of  twenty-one  articles  of  im- 
peachment against  the  Governor  of 
Texas.  That  was  the  big  question  in- 
volved. 

“The  Austin  American  believes, 
and  so  stated  at  the  beginning  of 
the  investigation,  that  barring  all 
other  questions  involved,  impeach- 
ment proceedings  would  follow,  that 
that  was  the  only  way  in  which  the 
appropriation  sufficient  to  maintain 


the  University  for  this  next  two  years 
could  be  obtained.” 

The  Constitution  stood  in  the  way. 
It  had  been  legally  vetoed,  and  the 
only  way  in  which  they  could  get  the 
money  with  which  to  continue  their 
unholy  spree  of  an  educated  hierar- 
chy out  there,  was  to  rend  in  twain 
the  Governor  of  this  State  and  bring 
his  fair  name  and  the  name  of  his 
family,  articles  of  impeachment — 
not  because  of  a matter  of  policy, 
but  because  of  a matter  of  appropri- 
ation; not  because  of  any  right  or 
wrong,  but  because  of  weighing  of  so 
much  gold  against  human  happiness, 
so  much  greed  for  lust  and  profit 
against  human  character, — that  was 
the  big  question  involved  and  that 
was  the  only  way  of  securing  an  ap- 
propriation sufficient  to  maintain  the 
University  for  the  next  two  years.  It 
was  of  no  consequence  to  them,  and, 
as  Mr.  Harris  said,  that  out  of  twen- 
ty-one trials  added,  they  could  not 
put  their  finger  on  a single  item  that 
they  thought  was  sufficient  to  im- 
peach the  Governor — but  that  was  the 
only  way  that  they  could  get  money, 
money,  money,  the  root  of  all  evil. 

(Laughter  in  the  galleries). 

The  only  way  that  they  could  do 
it  was  to  rend  in  twain  the  Governor 
of  the  State! 

The  Chair:  If  we  have  any  repe- 
tition of  that  (referring  to  laughter 
in  the  galleries),  the  galleries  shall 
be  cleare.d. 

Senator  Hudspeth:  It  certainly 
ought  to  be  done,  Mr.  President. 

The  Chair:  It  will  be. 

Senator  Hudspeth:  This  is  not  a 
vaudeville  performance,  and  those 
people  ought  to  understand  it,  sitting 
in  the  galleries. 

The  Chair:  The  Chair  warned  all 
the  visitors  yesterday  that  we  will 
not  tolerate  any  sort  of  demonstra- 
tion. I repeat  the  warning  now, 
and  will  not  give  it  any  more. 

Governor  Ferguson  (resuming) : 
And  so,  my  friends,  the  article  goes 
on: 

“When  the  articles  of  impeach- 
ment against  Governor  Ferguson 
were  filed  in  the  Senate,  he  was  au- 
tomatically suspended  from  office, 
and  the  Lieutenant  Governor  became 
Acting  Governor.  The  Senate  some- 
time ago  passed  the  appropriation 
bill,  providing  funds  to  maintain  the 
University.  This  measure  is  now  in 
the  hands  of  the  Committee  on  Ap- 
propriations in  the  House,  and  will 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


865 


be  reported  back  when  the  House  re- 
convenes, and  will  be  promptly- 
passed,  Acting  Governor  Hobby  will 
approve  it,  and  the  doors  of  the  great 
Texas  institution  of  learning  will 
open  as  usual,  at  the  beginning  of  the 
fall  term.  There  is  no  necessity  now 
for  dewelling  on  the  sidelights  of 
this  investigation  or  the  personal 
feeling  engendered.  These  could 
have  been  of  but  minor  importance 
as  compared  with  the  one  real  great 
question  for  which  the  people  of  the 
whole  State  are  working  for  the  pres- 
ervation of  the  University  and  are 
taking  it  out  of  politics.”  ^ 

And  so,  in  the  destiny  of  men,  it 
has  been  decreed  by  fate  that  I,  as 
Governor  of  the  State,  shall  suffer 
the  penalty  in  order  that  the  gold 
and  the  money  may  be  given  to  those 
who  desire  to  perpetuate  the  Univer- 
sity. And  what  kind  of  a University? 
Nobody  has  said,  nobody  did  say  up 
to  sometime  last  year  that  I was 
not  a friend  of  the  University.  I said 
in  my  platform,  away  back  yonder 
in  1913,  “I  am  heartily  in  favor  of 
any  legislation  looking  to  the  im- 
provement and  advancement  of  our 
public  schools  and  the  A.  and  M. 
College,  and  our  State  University. 
In  the  matter  of  appropriations  for 
such  purposes,  I would  only  be  re- 
stricted by  the  ability  of  the  State 
to.  pay  and  an  economical  expenditure 
of  the  public  money.”  What  Gover- 
nor in  Texas  ever  had  the  nerve  to 
stand  up  before  the  people  of  Texas 
and  say  that  the  limit  for  which  ed- 
ucational appropriations  should  ex- 
ceed should  only  be  controlled  by  an 
honest  and  economical  expenditure 
of  the  public  money.  “If  we  get  our 
money’s  worth,  let  us  buy  all  the  edu- 
cation we  q^in  pay  for,  and  let  us  be- 
gin with  the  little  schoolhouse  on 
the  country  road.” 

There  was  the  trouble.  In  my 
message  to  the  Legislature  of  this 
year,  I further  stated:  “I  am  in  favor 
of  liberal  appropriations  for  the  sup- 
port of  our  university  and  colleges, 
but  for  every  dollar  appropriated  for 
such  purpose  there  should  be  at  least 
three  dollars  set  aside  for  the  aid  of 
the  high  schools  in  the  towns  and 
the  graded  schools  in  the  country.” 

There  is  where  my  undoing  start- 
ed, that  is  the  great  crime  that  J, 
committed.  You,  gentlemen,  if  you 
must  lay  aside  your  oath  for  a min- 
ute, if  you  won’t  decide  this  question 


upon  the  merits  of  the  case,  then  I 
want  to  suggest  this  to  you:  That 
when  you  go  home  to  your  people 
whom  you  represent  in  this  Senate, 
give  them  an  account  of  your  stew- 
ardship. I want  you  to  decide  for 
yourselves  the  question  of  whether 
you  were  with  Ferguson  upon  the 
proposition  that  for  every  dollar  that 
you  give  to  the  University  you  have 
got  to  give  three  to  the  country 
schools  and  the  high  schools  of  the 
country.  You  cannot  escape  that 
proposition.  The  people  are  going 
to  demand  that  you,  as  honest  men, 
representing  them,  have  got  to  stand 
up  and  be  bold  enough,  brave  and 
honest  enough  to  say  whether  you 
are  for  or  against  that  proposition. 
I make  my  bed,  and  I say  that  it 
even  ought  to  be  more  than  three 
dollars.  You  have  got  to  get  on  one 
side  or  the  other.  You  vote  to  im- 
peach me  as  Governor  of  this  State, 
and  when  you  go  home  you  have  got 
to  be  honest  enough  fo  tell  the  peo- 
ple that  the  big  issue  involved  was 
the  University,  and  the  Governor  said 
he  wanted  to  give  three  dollars  to 
the  country  schools  and  to  the  high 
schools  of  the  country,  to  one  dollar 
to  the  University,  because  I disagreed 
With  him,  I voted  to  impeach  him, 
and  I have  come  now  to  ask  you  to 
sustain  me  upon  that  record.  Oh, 
but  you  say  that  that  was  not  the 
trouble!  I will  prove  it,  I will  prove 
that  that  was  the  only  issue,  and  that 
that  is  where  the  trouble  started,  and 
I will  prove  it  with  proof  that  is  con- 
vincing, even  as  the  sacred  obliga- 
tion of  the  testimony  in  Isreal. 
Listen:  When  the  student  mob  wait- 
ed upon  me  down  here,  they  held  a 
meeting  out  on  the  campus  of  the 
University,  and  they  sent  down  to 
Leon  Springs  to  get  the  President  of 
the  Students’  Council,  a member  of 
the  Legislature,  to  come  back  to  Aus- 
tin and  make  the  key  note  speech, 
which  would  represent  the  minds  and 
the  sentiment  and  the  spirit  of  the 
University  powers  out  there.  Here 
is  what  he  said:  “In  the  speech  made 
on  the  campus  previous  to  the  pa- 
rade to  the  Capitol,  by  George  Peddy, 
a member  of  the  Legislature  from 
Shelby  County,  and  now  a member 
of  the  Training  Camp  at  Leon 
Springs,  as  reported  by  the  Austin 
American,  we  find  one  of  the  real 
reasons  for  this  fight,” — 

Now,  listen: 


866 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


“The  Austin  American  says,” — 

You  can’t  discredit  them,  because 
there  has  been  no  tim,e  for  the  last 
three  weeks  when  you  read  that  pa- 
per in  the  morning  that  it  has  not 
said  something,  either  by  implication 
or  in  express  terms,  against  my  pri- 
vate record,  or  against  me  in  some 
way  or  other.  Listen  here  is  what 
the  Austin  American  account  says, 
and  I put  this  in  the  veto  message; 
it  has  never  been  questioned  by  any- 
body, I swore  to  it  over  in  the  House 
with  George  Peddy  looking  at  me  as 
close  as  Mr.  Cope  there,  and  he  did 
not  deny  it,  and  no  member  of  the 
faculty  of  the  University  has  ever 
denied  it — and  this  fact  stands  un- 
contradicted before  the  people  of 
Texas.  Listen: 

“In  a strong  voice,  keyed  to  the 
situation,  Mr.  Peddy  began  by  say- 
ing that  he  and  the  Governor  had  met 
on  the  floor  of  the  House  in  the  dis- 
cussion of  University  matters  before. 
He  thanked  the  students  for  having 
elected  him  as  President  of  the  Stu- 
dents’ Council  and  said  that  the  pres- 
ent moment  was  the  most  critical  in 
the  history  of  the  University.” 

Now,  listen  to  this: 

“The  fight  started,  he  declared, 
when  the  Governor  began  his  rural 
school  campaign  and  appealed  to  the 
people  of  the  State  in  a prejudicial 
manner.” 

Ah,  they  would  give  $50,000  out 
of  their  Ex-Students’  Association 
down  here  if  they  could  recall  that 
statement.  They  hushed  his  mouth 
ud  right  there,  and  he  never  was 
after  that  time  permitted  to  speak 
in  the  House  of  Representatives,  or 
anywhere  else.  That  fellow  had 
“spilled  the  beans”  for  them,  he  “let 
the  cat  out  of  the  wallet;”  so  the 
trouble  started  when  Governor  Fer- 
guson came  to  Austin  and  said  that 
he  wanted  to  give  three  dollars  to 
the  country  schools  and  to  the  high 
schools  of  the  country  for  every  dol- 
lar to  the  University.  So,  you  can 
begin  to  see  why  the  Austin  Ameri- 
can, in  its  editorial  said  that  “The 
one  big  question  involved  in  the  im- 
peachment proceedings  was  the  Uni- 
versity appropriation.  Ah!  my 
friends,  when  I came  to  Austin 
elected  on  that  platform  for  liberal 
appropriations  for  the  University, 
and  when  I had  approved  that  appro- 
priation for  $711,000  a year,  nearly 
twice  as  much  as  any  Governor  had 
ever  approved  for  the  University, 


the  people  of  Austin  thought  I was 
the  biggest  man  that  ever  sat  in 
the  Governor’s  chair,  and,  notwith- 
standing I had  never  been  past  the 
sixth  grade  in  school,  they  gave  me 
banquets,  they  wined  and  dined  me 
and  introduced  me  as  “The  Great 
Educational  Governor;”  as  long  as 
I would  give  them  money  to  carry 
on  that  unholy  aristocracy  out  there, 
which  they  are  seeking  to  perpetuate, 
I was  a great  Governor,  and  I ought 
to  be  worshipped  and  bowed  down 
to;  but  when  in  the  exercise  of  my 
duty  as  Governor  I said  I wanted  to 
know  “What  are  you  doing  with  this 
money,  what  are  you  going  to  do 
with  it,  and  what  have  you  got  to 
say?  What  are  you  giving  $300  to 
the  University  student,  and  only  fif- 
teen dollars — seven  and  a haif  dol- 
lars for  the  boy  in  the  country?” 
Then  they  begin  to  revolt,  and  the 
one  big  issue,  as  the  Austin  Ameri- 
can said,  was  the  impeachment  of 
the  Governor.  And  that  is  why  I 
stand  before  you  today,  like  Daniel 
in  the  lion’s  den,  with  those  people 
clamoring  for  my  destruction,  be- 
cause I have  raised  my  voice  in 
behalf  of  a million  and  a quarter 
school  children  in  Texas!  Why,  my 
friends,  I said  the  University  was 
extravagant,  I say  so  now.  Why, 
they  have  got  a paid  salaried  em- 
ploye, as  the  record  shows,  of  one 
paid  salaried  employe  for  every  eight 
students  at  the  University,  costing 
the  State  of  Texas  an  average  of 
$1338  per  annum.  I call  his  atten- 
tion to  that  fact,  and  then  the  im- 
peachment proceedings  began  to  grow 
stronger  and  the  Ex-Students  began 
to  meet,  they  began  to  deposit  their 
money,  as  the  record  shows,  down  in 
the  American  National  Bank,  and 
the  sentiment  began  to'  grow,  be- 
cause I did  not  have  any  money  to 
raise,  to  answer,  to  fight  the  thing 
back  with,  if  I had  wanted  to,  be- 
cause I stood  by  myself,  as  Gover- 
nor, upon  my  record,  and  with  no 
great  bank  account  behind  me.  The 
sentiment  is  rampant  around  Austin 
demanding  that  the  Governor  be  im- 
peached. Ah!  but  my  friends,  you 
can  impeach  me,  yes,  if  that  is  any 
personal  satisfaction,  all  right,  but  I 
have  got  the  satisfaction,  the  con- 
sciousness in  my  heart,  that  I have 
raised  my  voice  in  behalf  of  the 
great  yeomanry  of  the  great  State, 
and,  as  Lamar  said,  the  diffusion  of 
knowledge,  that  knowledge  that 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


867 


everybody  could  get  some  of,  because 
I said  that  a few  favored  people  down 
at  Austin  are  getting  more  than  their 
share,  and,  as  the  Austin  American 
said,  the  one  big  question  was,  be- 
cause the  Governor  had  sought  to 
raise  this  question,  therefore,  im- 
peachment proceedings  followed. 

Ah!  I said  in  my  platform,  “Let 
us  begin  at  the  little  country 
schoolhouse  by  the  side  of  the  road.” 
They  are  the  people  that  you  have 
got  to  answer  to  when  you  go  home 
— the  honest  people  that  make  the 
wealth  of  this  country,  that  live  out 
in  the  | country,  that  great  band  of 
citizenship,  who  neither  sits  in  the 
seat  of  the  scornful,  who  neither 
hail  the  cynic’s  band,  but  who  pre- 
fer to  live  in  the  little  house  beside 
the  road,  and  to  be  a friend  to  man, 
they  are  the  people  that  are  sus- 
taining me  in  this  fight,  they  ^re  the 
people  you  have  got  to  answer  to 
when  this  great  controversy  goes  to 
the  people. 

Oh,  it  is  a question  of  whether  it 
shall  be  a democracy  or  autocracy, 
whether  a few  people  shall  say  that 
“nobody  shall  inquire  into  us  and  we 
will  impeach  any  Governor  that  has 
the  nerve  or  the  honesty  of  purpose 
to  say  that  he  shall  go  thus  far  and 
no  further.”  Oh,  but  they  said  yes- 
terday, that  “if  you  will  resign,  the 
thing  will  be  dropped.”  I would 
rather  be  impeached  a thousand 
times  than  by  any  admission  or  act 
of  mine  to  say  that  I had  ever  been 
thwarted  from  my  purpose,  stated  in 
that  platform  of  1913,  to  raise  my 
voice  in  behalf  of  the  110,000  school 
children  in  Texas  who  had  never 
crossed  the  threshold  of  a public 
school.  Oh,  General  Crane  will  tell 
you  that  I committed  a great  crime 
against  the  boys  and  girls  out  at 
the  State  University.  My  friends, 
they  committed  the  first  crime  after 
they  had  been  fostered  and  support- 
ed by  fabulous  amounts  from  my 
administration,  which  were  seven 
and  a half  times  more  than  the  aver- 
age that  had  been  appropriated  to 
the  University  for  thirty  years! 
They  then  wanted  more,  and  became 
I wanted  to  discuss  with  the  Regents 
what  we  should  do  with  the  money, 
not  only  the  students,  but  the  fac- 
ulty of  the  University  attended  the 
meeting,  and  in  less  than  a hundred 
feet  of  the  President  of  the  Univer- 
sity they  marched  down  t.o  the  Gov- 
ernor’s office,  who  was  not  bothering 


them,  but  who  was  in  his  office  talk- 
ing to  /the  University  Regents  in 
whom  the  Constitution  had  placet 
the  power  or  the  government  of  that 
institution,  and  with  a defiant  atti- 
tude, as  Mr.  Butler  has  told  you, 
shaking  their  fists  at  the  Governor, 
making  faces  at  him,  yelling  at  him, 
and  they  tried  to  intimidate — but  it 
didn’t  work.  I have  got  my  con- 
sciousness, I have  got  my  satisfac- 
tion and  I have  laid  down  the  pre- 
cedent that  no  mob,  though  it  may 
be  organized  on  the  University  cam- 
pus, can  in  the  future  come  down 
to  the  Governor’s  office  and  tell  him 
what  to  do.  A mob  that  is  organ- 
ized at  the  University,  is  just  as 
much  a mob,  just  as  much  in  defiance 
of  the  law  as  a mob  that  is  organized 
in  a back  alley  or  some  secluded 
place  in  town.  Ah!  they  say,  that 
the  Governor  of  Texas,  because  he  is 
Governor,  shall  be  held  to  a higher 
standard  than  anybody  else.  And 
yet,  those  young  men  out  there,  hav- 
ing had  the  advantags  of  a free 
school  education,  having  been  given 
the  privileges  of  a University,  they 
say  that  by  this  action  of  theirs,  that 
they,  in  future,  shall  have  the  right 
to  organize  a mob  and  go  down  and 
wait  upon  the  Governor  and  make 
him  do  what  they  want  him  to  do. 
That  is  the  issue  you  have  to  de- 
cide before  you  vote  to  impeach  me. 
You  want  to  be  able  to  go  home  and 
tell  your  people  that  if  you  had  been 
Governor  and  a mob  had  waited  on 
you,  that  you  would  have  had  the 
nerve  to  say,  “I  defy  you  now,  and  I 
will  cut  your  appropriation  off  right 
here.”  But  whenever  you  take  from 
the  power  of  the  Governor  and  instill 
in  his  mind  a fear  that  he  cannot  do 
that,  then  every  Governor  will  be 
waited  on  by  a mob  for  forty  yeajs 
to  come,  because  they  will  say,  “We 
put  it  over  Ferguson,  and  we  will 
put  it  over  every  other  man.” 

Ah!  but  they  say  I made  unlawful 
and  unfair  criticisms  against  the 
University.  Listen:  I want  to  call 
your  attention  to  what  were  some  of 
the  things  I said.  They  said  that  T 
said  some  of  them  were  liars.  All 
right.  I said  that.  Are  you  going 
to  impeach  a Governor  for  that?  On 
the  floor  of  this  Senate  I have  heard 
men  called  liars,  and  yet  nobody 
would  think  for  a minute  that  some- 
one might  be  impeached.  They  said 
that  I said  that  they  were  grafters. 


868 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


They  admitted  that  they  went  and 
changed  a voucher  to  get  $19.00  out 
of  the  public  Treasury!  The  amount 
of  money  cuts  no  figure.  Why,  you 
talk  about  applying  your  rule  to 
same  fellow  in  high  station  being  ex- 
pected to  deliver  more,  and  that 
more  can  be  expected  of  him  than 
you  can  of  one  in  lower*  station. 
What  do  you  think  of  a President  of 
the  University  who  admits,  ana  the 
record  is  uncontradicted,  that  he 
went  in  to  the  Auditor  and  says, 
“You  are  to  change  that  voucher  and 
change  the  facts,”  in  order  that  some- 
body might  get  $19.00  out  the  pub- 
lic Treasury,  that  they  admit  now 
that  they  were  not  entitled  to?  The 
smallness  of  the  amount  adds  to  the 
enormity  of  the  crime,  and,  therefore, 
I say,  I was  fully  justified  in  making 
the  statement.  But,  they  say,  I was 
opposed  to  Dr.  Vinson.  I was.  I said 
then,  and  I say  now,  that  I do  not 
think  he  is  a proper  man  for  the 
place.  Now,  let  us  see  what  the, rec- 
ord is  on  that,  the  uncontradicted 
record;  you  are  bound  to  admit  with 
me,  that  if  he  was  guilty  of  the 
things,  and  the  statements  that  1 
made  about  him  were  true,  then  the 
people  of  the  State  were  entitled  to 
a better  President  than  I said  he 
was.  Now,  listen,  here  is  what  I said 
about  him  (reading) : 

“In  my  opinion,  the  University  has 
not  a proper  President.  He  has 
neither  that  experience  as  a teacher 
nor  sufficient  educational  attainments 
that  would  qualify  him  to  fill  this 
important  place.” 

He  admitted  that  he  took  a sum- 
mer school  course  in  the  University 
of  Chicago,  that  he  graduated  in 
Austin  College  up  at  Sherman,  and 
that  he  had  graduated  in  a preach- 
er’s school  up  here  somewhere. 
Now,  ask  yourselves  the  question, 
with  forty  other  professors  out  there 
having  degrees  far  above  and  beyond 
him,  whether  that  statement  was 
warranted  by  his  own  admissions, 
that  he  had  only  attended  a summer 
school  in  Chicago,  that  he  had  grad- 
uated at  a preacher’s  school,  and  in 
Austin  College  at  Sherman.  Is  it 
possible  that  with  all  the  money  we 
have  given  them  to  support  that 
great  institution  that  we  cannot  get 
a man  who  has  more  educational  at- 
tainments than  that?  Now,  listen: 
“His  management  of  an  institution” 
— here  is  what  I said  about  him,  and 


put  it  in  the  veto  message, — “his 
management  of  an  institution 
previous  to  fiis  promotion  to  Ihe 
presidency  of  the  State  University 
was  a failure.”  That  fact  stands  un- 
contradicted in  this  record.  Mr. 
Fiset  testified  that  Wilbur  Allen  said 
that  he  had  wrecked  that  Presby- 
terian school.  That  fact  stands  un- 
contradicted in  this  record.  “And 
his  record  there,” — listen, — “his  rec- 
ord there  by  no  means  recommends 
him  to  be  employed  at  $6,000  a year 
by  the  people  of  Texas.”  Anything 
wrong  about  that  criticism?  Has  the 
Governor  of  the  State  got  no  right 
to  make  a criticism  like  that?  Has 
the  Governor  of  the  State  got  no 
right  to  suggest  that  we  ought  to 
have  a man  of  some  educational  at- 
tainments at  the  University  of  Texas? 
Has  the  Governor  of  the  State  got 
no  right  to  call  attention  to  the  fact 
that  he  had  made  a failure  of  the 
institution  where  he  was?  And 
don’t  you  know  that  if  that  state- 
ment had  been  untrue,  and  if  his 
record  at  the  theological  seminary, 
just  across  the  street  from  the  Uni- 
versity, if  that  statement  had  been 
untrue,  they  would  have  had  wit- 
nesses here,  they  would  have  had 
every  Presbyterian  from  the  confines 
of  Texas  to  come  here  and  tell  you 
how  well  they  were  satisfied  with 
his  management  of  that  school.  But 
the  echo  says,  “Where  are  they?” 
Wilbur  Allen  stands  uncontradicted 
— -whatever  you  may  think  about 
him.  I stand  uncontradicted  that  he 
was  a failure,  that  he  had  wrecked 
that  school;  and  yet,  when  they  had 
never  paid  anybody  else  but  $5,000 
a year,  they  took  a man  from  across 
the  street  who  had  made  a failure 
of  a school  and  gave  him  $6,000  a 
year!  Are  you  going  to  go  home  and 
tell  your  people  that  you  impeached 
the  Governor  of  this  State  because 
he  called  attention  to  the  uncontra- 
dicted fact  that  they  had  a President 
of  the  University  of  Texas  who  ^as 
getting  $6,000  a year  and  who  had 
made  an  utter  failure  of  his  educa- 
tional career?  You  have  got  to  get 
on  one  side  or  the  other,  there  is  no 
escape  from  the  proposition,  and  as 
a matter  of  fact,  it  is  known  in  Aus- 
tin that  I am  correct,  that  that  school 
is  closed,  and  as  a result  of  this 
man’s  management;  the  papers  were 
full  of  it  at  the  time;  that  the  man, 
Dr.  Anderson,  succeeded  him,  said 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


869 


that  because  its  financial  condition 
had  been  misrepresented  to  him,  he 
asked  to  be  relieved  from  his  con- 
tract with  the  Presbyterian  synod; 
it  stands  out  in  bold  relief  that  you 
have  gone  and  given  $6,000  a year 
to  a man  to  be  President  of  the 
State  University  who  had  made  only 
a failure,  in  that  way. 

Oh,  my  friends,  the  Constitution 
says — they  say  I am  striking  down 
the  Constitution,  they  say  that  I 
ought  to  be  impeached  because  the 
Constitution  provides  that  we  shall 
have  a University  of  the  first  class. 
Yes,  that  is  true,  it  provides  that. 
But  that  same  Constitution  provides 
how  you  shall  expend  that  money. 
I didn’t  raise  this  quesaion,  I didn’t 
start  this  fight  on  the  University; 
they  started  it  themselves,  and  1 
told  them  over  in  the  House  that  I 
was  sorry  that  they  had  raised  that 
question;  but  as  they  had  charged 
me  with  striking  down  the  Constitu- 
tion, I had  a right  to  quote  the  Con- 
stitution. So,  the  Constitution  says 
that  all  appropriations  made  by  the 
State  of  Texas  shall  be  done — what 
with?  Not  given  all  in  one  year  to 
them,  to  spend  $300  per  student,  but 
it  shall  be  invested  in  bonds,  after  it 
is  put  into  the  Treasury,  and  the 
Legislature  can  only  appropriate  the 
interest  on  the  money.  And  yet,  they 
say  that  I struck  down  the  Constitu- 
tion! My  friends,  let  me  tell  you 
about  it.  I realize  what  some  people 
are  expected  to  be  done  here,  and 
I want  to  tell  you  I have  never  fal- 
tered, and  I am  not  going  to  falter, 
because  I know  what  the  Constitu- 
tion is,  because  it  is  so  plain  that  he 
who  runs  may  read.  That  appropria- 
tion is  illegal  out  there — it  is  illegal 
from  two  grounds,  and  you  have  got 
to  go  home  and  defend  it.  The  first 
ground  is  that,  as  shown  by  the  tax 
board  records  down  here,  that  last 
year’s  appropriations — I mean  the 
appropriations  made  by  this  year’s 
Legislature  for  the  next  two  years, 
exceeds  by  seven  cents  the  constitu- 
tional limit  of  thirty-five  cents.  It 
would  take  forty-two  cents  before 
the  University  was  made,  to  take  care 
of  the  appropriations  made  by  the 
last  Legislature  at  its  call  session. 
Now,  then,  after  you  have  exceeded 
the  constitutional  limit  by  seven 
cents,  you  come  along  again  and  put 
about  four  cents  more  for  the  Uni- 
versity, when  you  said  in  your 


resolution  that  war  is  upon 
the  people,  that  famine  is 
in.  the  western  part  of  our  State, 
that  poverty  is  abroad  in  the  land, 
a.nd  the  cry  of  humanity  beckons 
you  to  save  us  from  the  trouble  and 
from  misfortune  and  starvation — 
when  all  that  is  over  the  country, 
when  the  tax  limit  is  seven  cents 
above  the  constitutional  limit,  you 
then  put  upon  the  backs  of  the  peo- 
ple four  cents  more  by  appropriating 
$1,640,000  for  the  fortunate  boys 
and  girls  out  at  the  University,  who 
have  already  had  a common  school 
education  at  the  expense  of  the  State 
and  you  think  that  you  are  going 
to  make  me,  under  the  passions  of 
the  hour,  stop  me  from  raising  that 
question?  I will  tell  you,  I am  not 
going  to  stop  it,  we  are  going  to  see, 
since  you  have  raised  this  question 
and  have  pursued  me  here  with  it, 
we  are  going  to  see  whether  some- 
body will  take  care  of  the  Constitu- 
tion or  not.  Ah!  they  talk  about  a 
little  $2400  that  the  Legislature  gave 
to  the  Governor  of  Texas  to  buy  sup- 
plies at  the  Mansion  with.  And  yet 
you  yell,  and  you  rant  about  the  Con- 
stitution, about  that  little  item,  and 
you  don’t  say  a word  about  the 
$1,640,000  that  has  been  given  after 
the  constitutional  limit  has  been  ex- 
ceeded, and  for  a purpose  which  the 
Constitution  itself  says  you  can  not 
give  it!  You  talk  about  the  Consti- 
tution. Be  frank,  and  go  before  the 
people  of  this  State  and  say  whether 
you  want  the  Constitution  enforced 
in  one  respect,  and  that  you  haven’t 
got  nerve  enough  to  enforce  it,  when 
it  is  already  given  to  the  favored 
few.  Oh,  that  is  the  issue.  You  may 
put  upon  me  impeachment,  I will 
never  falter  from  my  duty.  You 
talk  obut  the  Constitution!  They 
talk  about  $2400  that  the  Constitu- 
tion said  I should  not  have  at  the 
Mansion,  and.  yet  the  record  shows 
that  the  University  of  Texas  has  used 
$7,000,000  in  its  history  in  defiance 
of  the  Constitution,  and  you  haven’t 
got  nerve  enough,  because  there  is  a 
student  mob  out  there,  and  there  is 
an  Ex-Students  Association  in  Texas 
who  might  have  some  political  in- 
fluence. Some  people  haven’t  got  the 
nerve  to  stand  up  and  say  that,  be- 
cause of  your  University  you  have 
got  no  more  right  to  take  money  be- 
yond the  limits  of  the  Constitution 
than  anybody  else.  And  that  is  the 


870 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


question  you  have  got  to  meet  be- 
fore the  people.  I am  going  to  raise 
it  on  you.  Just  as  well  understand 
it.  You  have  held  it  constitutional, 
and  I am  going  to  put  it  on  until  it 
burns  like  a mustard  plaster,  and  we 
might  just  as  well  understand  it. 
If  this  thing  is  persisted  in,  this  right 
of  coming  down  to  Austin  with  a 
mob  and  telling  the  Governor  of  the 
State  what  he  must  do,  and  telling 
the  Board  of  Regents  what  they 
must  do,  you  persist  in  that  proposi- 
tion, and  if  I read  the  signs  of  the 
times  right,  the  people  of  Texas  are 
ready  to  vote  upon  a question  to 
remove  this  University  from  Austin 
to  some  place  where  they  can’t  send 
the  people  down  to  pack  the  galler- 
ies, where  they  can’t  send  the  mob 
down  to  intimidate  the  Governor, 
where  the  representatives  of  the  peo- 
ple in  the  full  majesty  of  their  inde- 
pendence will  be  left  free  to  do  that 
which  their  consciences  tells  them 
they  ought  to  do,  where  they  shall  be 
left  free  to  obey  the  mandate  of  the 
Constitution,  plainly  and  explicitly 
written.  Oh,  my  friends,  these  are 
the  great  issues  involved.  All  these 
other  charges  that  they  have  made 
can  be  with  the  fact  that  Mr.  Harris 
said  that  none  of  them  were  suffi- 
cient to  justify  impeachment;  he  said 
he  did  not  believe  that  I wanted  to 
make  the  interest  on  the  money,  but 
that  I wanted  to  borrow  some  money 
from  the  bank.  My  friends,  the 
other  proposition  is,  I didn’t  tell  you 
here  where  I got  the  $156,000.  Some 
Senators  have  thought  that  I have 
been  guilty  of  impropriety  in  not 
divulging  that  information.  You  are 
sworn  to  try  me  according  to  the  law 
and  the  evidence,  and,  therefore,  you 
have  got  no  right,  if  you  want  to  do 
honestly,  if  you  want  to  be  fair  about 
it,  you  have  got  no  right  to  deprive 
me  of  any  legal  rights;  and  if  you 
do  that  in  order  to  gratify  some  per- 
sonal spleen  or  some  personal  ani- 
mosity, then  you  become  a greater 
offender  than  I could  ever  possibly 
be,  if  I had  been  guilty  of  all  the 
charges  which  they  charge  me  with 
here.  I said  on  the  stand  that  I be- 
lieved under  my  oath  that  I had  the 
right  to  decline  to  tell  where  I got 
the  money.  Now,  then,  I was  either 
right  about  that,  or  I was  wrong 
about  it,  there  is  no  middle  ground 
about  it,  I had  a right  to  withhold 
the  information  or  I didn’t  have  the 


right.  If  I didn’t  have  the  right, 
then  if  you  have  got  a mode  of  trial 
prescribed  in  the  Constitution,  you 
had  the  right  to  punish  me  for  con- 
tempt. If  you  have  not  got  a mode 
of  trial  provided  in  the  Constitution, 
then  your  whole  proceeding  is  a null- 
ity. It  shows  you  that  you  did  not 
believe  you  had  that  right,  neither 
the  House  nor  the  Senate  would 
move  to  fine  me  for  contempt.  Oh, 
you  are  talking  about  the  law  of  the 
country,  and  the  courts  of  the  coun- 
try. If  you  honestly  believed  that 
that  was  the  right  position,  then  the 
courts  were  open  to  you  to  put  me  in 
iail  for  failure  to  answer  the  ques- 
tion. Go  home  and  explain  to  your 
people  why,  when  you  condemn  me 
for  that,  why  you  did  not  exhaust  the 
remedy  given  you  by  law?  The  rea- 
son is,  I fancy,  that  some  astute 
members  of  the  Senate  had  read  the 
Constitution  and  they  had  discovered 
that  there  were  no  means  or  manner, 
or  mode  provided  for  the  impeach- 
ment of  the  Governor,  and  that  if 
they  went  into  the  courts  the  whole 
thing  would  be  held  a nullity;  and 
that  was  the  reason  the  question  was 
not  raised  here.  Ah!  but  you  say, 
“You  ought  to  tell  anyhow.”  Under 
ordinary  circumstances  I believe  that 
is  true,  and  I think  that  the  record 
will  disclose  that  there  never  was  a 
man  in  Texas  that  had  told  more  de- 
tails of  his  private  business  than  I 
had  told  up  to  the  time  I declined  to 
answer  that  question. 

Two  investigations  had  been  held 
in  Austin  and  my  business  and  my 
wife’s  business,  and  my  bank’s  busi- 
ness and  my  cattle  company’s  busi- 
ness and  my  coal  busines  and  every- 
thing that  I had  had  any  business 
connection  with  for  the  past  twenty 
years  were  gone  into  and  laid  bare, 
and  as  the  result  of  it,  continued  per- 
secution and  continued  criticism  and 
investigation  of  my  private  business. 
I have  suffered  a great  loss  in  my  lit- 
tle fortune  and  it  looked  as  though  I 
was  going  to  lose  it  all  and  would  be- 
come as  a poor  boy  washing  dishes 
at  twenty  dollars  a month,  and  step 
by  step,  and  by  economy,  tending  to 
my  business,  I,  like  every  honest  man 
and  every  ambitious  man,  desired  to 
accumulate  something  for  old  age,  as 
the  result  of  it  I had  worked  all  these 
years  I had  lived;  that  there  ought 
to  be  a time  at  some  place  and  some- 
where this  continued  digging  and 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


871 


probing  and  nagging  into  a man’s 
private  business  should  stop.  It  had 
come  to  a place  where  I could  not 
get  accommodation;  nobody  wanted 
to  do  business  with  me,  not  because, 
as  the  record  shows  I had  ever  beat 
anybody  out  of  a dollar,  not  that  I 
had  ever  failed  to  pay  my  honest 
debts,  but  because  the  politicians 
were  after  me,  seeking  by  any  means 
fair  or  foul,  to  accomplish  my  de- 
struction. It  was  impossible  for  me 
to  get  financial  aid.  Thus  being 
tossed  upon  the  waves  of  financial 
distress  being  thrown  upon  the  rocks 
of  failure,  I appealed  to  my  friends  to 
help  me,  and  I had  to  tell  them  if 
they  would  help  me  they  would  not 
be  subjected  to  the  same  criticism  and 
the  same  scrutiny  and  the  same  perse- 
cution that  other  creditors  of  mine 
had  been.  Under  those  conditions 
they  loaned  me  the  money.  Now  then 
I am  being  asked  to  be  impeached 
because  I won’t  tell  who  I got  that 
money  from  under  those  circum- 
stances. Is  it  possible  that  fair- 
minded  men  have  become  devoid  of 
every  obligation  which  common  hon- 
esty of  one  man  demands  must  ex- 
ist for  the  perpetuation  of  civiliza- 
tion? Is  it  possible  to  satisfy  some- 
body’s political  animosity  that  I must 
be  brushed  aside  and  a word  given 
in  confidence  upon  which  a consider- 
ation was  received  must  be  broken 
and  bring  persecution  to  the  men  who 
loaned  the  money  and  financial  ruin 
to  the  man  who  borrowed  the  money? 
Well  you  may  understand  why  Mr. 
Harris  had  to  admit,  that  “We  are 
not  asking  you  to  impeach  the  Gov- 
ernor solely  upon  the  $156,000  item.” 
because  he  knows  and  must  know 
that  no  man  ought  to  be  impeached 
except  for  a crime  defined  by  law, 
much  less  some  suspicion.  Now,  lis- 
ten. They  have  scraped  the  earth  with 
a fine  tooth  comb;  they  even  thought 
they  had  the  money  traced  and  they 
brought  people  here  to  testify  to  the 
wrappers  on  the  money,  that  it  was 
in  the  Alamo  National  Bank;  that 
was  their  theory.  You  will  remem- 
ber in  the  papers  where  they  said 
they  had  found  it  over  in  the  Alamo 
National  Bank.  And  yet  the  men 
here,  the  record  showed,  were  sub- 
poenaed— officials  of  that  bank — 
and  they  went  there  and  did  not  find 
where  any  loan  in  such  an  amount 
ha.d  ever  passed  through  their  books 
and  the  record  is  as  silent  as  the 
grave  where  that  money  came  from, 


the  record  is  as  silent  as  the  grave 
where  it  came  from  or  who  it  came 
from.  And  yet  you  are  asked  to  im- 
peach me  because  I won’t  tell.  Now, 
listen.  Don’t  you  know  that  the  true 
test  of  a public  servant  is  that  of 
public  service? — the  matter  of  his 
record  by  which  he  should  be  tried 
as  a public  official?  and  if  there  is 
nothing  in  his  public  record  that 
brings  either  an  evidence  of  some 
guilt  or  some  crime  or  moral  tur- 
pitude you’ve  got  no  right  to  go  in- 
to his  private  business.  They  say 
that  it  was  official  misconduct.  In 
what  respect?  Was  it  because  of 
the  prohibition  question.  If  there 
had  been  a scintilla  of  evidence  of 
some  action  of  mine  in  reference  to 
the  prohibition  question,  wouldn’t 
they  have  proven  it?  Was  it  the  oil 
interests  that  somebody  squints  at? 
Had  my  record  on  the  oil  legislation 
been  such  as  to  arouse  suspicion  you 
would  have  found  it  alleged  in 
these  charges  here.  What  have  I 
done  in  my  official  record?  What 
promise  to  the  people  have  I made 
that  I have  not  fulfilled?  What  ob- 
ligation resting  upon  me  officially 
have  I failed  to  perform?  And  yet 
because  in  my  financial  dilemma  I 
had  to  give  my  word  to  the  people 
who  helped  me  in  my  time  of  finan- 
cial distress,  they  admitting  at  the 
same  time  it  is  not  sufficient 
ground  for  impeachment,  they  say  it 
ought  to  be  joined  with  twenty 
other  charges  fully  as  faulty  and 
I ought  to  be  put  out  of  office  on 
that  ground.  My  friends,  to  serve 
the  people  of  Texas  is  a great  dis- 
tinction. To  have  the  office  of  Gov- 
ernor is  a great  distinction.  But 
for  a man  to  be  conscious  that  he 
had  betrayed  his  Irust,  that  he  had 
misled  his  friends,  that  he  had 
broken  his  word,  would  take  away 
from  him  every  personal  satisfac- 
tion that  he  had  ever  received  any 
honor  or  been  entitled  to  any  honor, 
and  so  upon  this  ground  I refused 
to  testify,  as  I had  a legal  right  to 
do,  and  which  the  courts,  if  you 
would  put  it  in  the  courts,  would 
demonstrate  that  I had  a legal 
right  to  do,  and  you  as  fairminded 
men  ought  to  be^  liberal  enough  in 
the  absence  of  any  proof  to  say  that 
you  are  not  justified  in  convicting 
me  and  finding  me  guilty  upon  a 
mere  matter  of  suspicion.  Suspicion 
about  what?  Is  it  any  crime  for 
a man  to  borrow  $156,000?  Is 


872 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


there  a man  in  this  Senate,  if  he 
needed  the  money  for  a purpose 
and  a man  would  tell  him  he  would 
loan  him  the  money  if  he  would  not 
tell  ab'out  it,  that  would  not  bor- 
row the  money  under  the  same  con- 
ditions? Not  a one  of  you.  Let’s 
be  honest  with  each  other.  Remem- 
ber the  obligations  of  man  to  man. 
You  would  have  borrowed  the 
money.  As  Senator  McNealus  told 
me  the  other  day,  “I  know  the  rea- 
son you  would  not  tell  where  you 
got  the  $156,000.”  I said,  “Why?” 
He  said,  “Because  you  know  it 
would  break  up  this  Senate  and 
they  would  all  be  running  down  to 
the  same  place  to  see  if  they  could 
get  some  of  t.he  same  money.” 

Senator  McNealus:  Mr.  President 
will  the  Governor  please  state  wheth- 
er that  was  said  in  a jocular  manner? 

Governor  Ferguson:  Yes,  sir,  but 
many  a truth  is  uttered  in  a joke, 
but  at  the  same  time  the  Senator 
has  not  denied  the  fact  and  I think 
his  failure  to  deny  would  be  no  ex- 
emplification or  disrespect  to  say  un- 
der the  same  condition  if  he  needed 
money  he  would  borrow  it  from  any-< 
body  that  wanted  to  loan  it  to  him. 

Now,  my  friends,  I have  spoken  at 
length.  They  say  I borrowed  money? 
up  at  the  Temple  State  Bank.  Yes, 

I did.  The  directors  were  satisfied 
with  it.  No  man  has  been  brought 
here  to  say — representatives  of  the 
Temple  State  Bank — that  they  were 
dissatisfied  with  it.  I said  upon  oath 
that  they  were  satisfied  with  it.  Don’t 
you  know  if  there  had  been  anything 
wrong  about  it  they  would  have  had 
all  the  people  here  in  Bell  County 
to  testify  to  that  fact?  The  former 
investigating  committee  in  the  spring 
of  this  year,  in  passing  upon  the  very 
question  of  the  over-line  that  they 
talk  about,  said  that  “based  upon  the 
good  faith  of  the  Governor  and  his 
solvent  condition  to  pay  or  repay  it, 
we  do  not  think  it  is  any  ground  for 
impeachment.”  Any  difference  in  the 
facts  now  than  they  were  then?  If 
it  was  a crime  then  it  is  a crime 
now;  if  it  was  not  a crime  then,  it 
is  not  a crime  now.  That  is  the 
answer  to  that  charge.  If  the  di- 
rectors were  satisfied  with  it  and  the 
money  was  repaid,  so  far  as  the  crime 
of  impeachment  is  concerned,  wheth- 
er it  was  thirty  per  cent  more  than 
the  law  allowed  or  fifty  per  cent 
more.  It  might  have  involved  a mat- 


ter of  impropriety,  but  as  long  as  it 
was  paid  and  everybody  was  satisfied 
and  nobody  has  lost  a dollar,  then 
you  as  fairminded  men  called  to  pass 
upon  the  question  of  whether  I have 
done  wrong — of  course,  I have  done 
wrong  in  many  instances;  you 
have  done  wrong  and  I have 
done  wrong;  it  is  impossible  to  stay 
in  the  Governor’s  office  three  weeks 
and  not  do  wrong  in  some  way — 
your  fool  friends  will  help  you  make 
a mistake;  your  enemies  will  involv.e 
you  and  make  you  make  mistakes; 
the  ordinary  fallacies  of  human  judg- 
ment will  make  you  make  mistakes; 
but  that  is  not  the  issue.  Senators. 
The  issue  is  whether  each  and  every 
one  of  the  charges  here  are  of  suffi- 
cient gravity  and  coupled  to  that  de- 
gree that  would  justify  the  great  and 
enormous  crime  of  impeachment?  I 
say  they  are  not.  It  is  not  a ques- 
tion of  whether  I did  wrong  or  not, 
but  whether  I have  been  guilty  of  an 
impeachable  wrong  is  the  question 
which  you  are  called  upon  to  decide. 
If  your  conscience  does  not  tell  you 
that  I have  been  guilty  of  a wrong 
to  that  degree,  and  you  vote  against 
me,  then  you  have  not  shown  proper 
respect  for  the  oath  which  you  took 
to  try  me  impartially. 

Now,  my  friends,  I must  close.  I 
realize  that  I am  going  to  be  followed* 
by  the  official  speaker  of  the  House 
of  Representatives  and  th©  Board 
of  Managers.  Somehow  or  other  I 
have  never  envied  the  private  prose- 
cutor. I could  always  harmonize  in 
my  mind  why  it  was  that  a man  could 
accept  money  to  support  his  family 
and  while  he  was  trying  to  help  some 
man  out  of  trouble,  to  help  some  man 
on  his  way,  to  extend  some  act  of 
kindness;  but  I never,  whilst  I do  not 
condemn  it  exactly,  I just  want  to 
say  that  I never  could  understand 
and  get  the  viewpoint  of  the  man 
who  wanted  to  be  always  employed 
to  hurt  somebody,  to  make  trouble 
for  somebody,  to  criticize  somebody, 
to  prosecute  somebody,  because  it  al- 
ways leads  to  a man’s  becoming  a 
persecutor.  Prosecution  is  a twin, 
brother  to  persecution,  and  posterity 
never  approved  either  one  of  them. 
And  so  I realize  now  that  the  Gen- 
eral is  going  to  bitterly  arraign  me; 
he  is  going  to  tell  you  what  a bad 
man  I am,  and  every  time  he  tells 
you  something  I want  you  not  to  lose 
sight  of  the  fact  that  Mr.  Harris,  his 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


873 


co-counsel,  said  that  neither  one  of 
these  was  sufficient  ground  for  im- 
ueacliment,  but  they  had  to  take 
them  all  together,  and  when  he  be- 
gins to  tell  you  how  bad  a man  I 
am  and  how  I betrayed  my  trust 
I want  you  to  remember  that  I have 
done  a few  things  for  the  people  of 
Texas  and  I want  you  to  remember 
that  I am  not  as  bad  a man  as  they 
say  I am.  If  I had  been  a man  that 
was  avaricious,  if  I had  wanted  to 
make  two  hundred  and  fifty  or  five 
hundred  dollars  interest  on  some 
money  for  forty-five  or  fifty  ,days 
how  do  you  harmonize  it  with  a man 
who  has  worked  hard  all  his  life, 
and  who  in  his  middle  age  desired 
to  do  something  for  his  country,  de- 
sired to  do  something  for  the  masses 
of  the  country,  desired  to  do  some- 
thing for  the  boys  and  girls  who  went 
to  school  in  the  country,  desired  to 
do  something  for  the  tenant  farmers 
who  had  been  heretofore  unnoticed 
by  the  people  of  the  country,  to  do 
something  for  the  upbuilding  of  the 
country,  who  took  from  his  private 
estate  thirty-one  thousand  dollars, 
not  from  any  brewery,  not  from  any 
oil  interests,  if  you  please,  but,  as 
the  record  shows,  from  my  own  bank 
I took  $31,000  from  my  own  funds 
and  spent  it  legitimately  in  the  cam- 
paign, making  my  own  platform  and 
policies.  Does  it  seem  reasonable,  if 
I had  been  that  bad  a man,  that  I 
would  have  made  that  sacrifice?  Thq 
last  campaign  I spent  thirty-four 
hundred  dollars.  Then  they  say  I 
only  done  it  for  the  purpose  of  mak- 
ing four  or  five  hundred  dollars  in- 
terest on  a deposit  for  a few  months. 
Does  it  look  reasonable  that  a man 
would  do  that?  I have  been  in  office 
a little  over  two  years.  I have  got 
about  $8000  salary  out  of  the  office. 
When  I get  through  paying  my  law- 
yers in  this  case  the  salary  will  have 
been  wiped  out.  I have  paid  off  the 
chicken  salad  item  and  I have  paid 
for  the  labor  at  the  Mansion;  this 
Legislature  has  not  seen  fit  to  allow 
me  for  the  labor  at  the  Mansion — 
a rule  not  enforced  against  any  other 
Governor  of  the  State.  Why,  they 
talk  about  my  using  the  credit  of  the 
State,  with  the  State’s  money  to  bor- 
row money,  and  you  lose  sight  of 
the  fact  that  Mr.  Dunn  of  the  Union 
National  Bank  told  you  that  when 
I came  into  office  the  credit  of  the 
penitentiary  had  gotten  to  where  no- 


body wanted  to  do  business  with  it. 
Because  of  my  financial  standing  the 
State  used  my  credit  to  get  a hun- 
dred and  twenty  thousand  dollars  to 
make  a success  of  the  penitentiary, 
to  put  it  on  a cash  basis,  and  if  you 
are  going  to  measure  it  by  the  ques- 
tion of  cold  blooded  dollars  and  cents 
the  record  is  undisputed  that  I have 
done  as  much  for  the  credit  of  the 
State  as  the  State  has  done  for  my 
credit.  The  result  of  it  is,  you  write 
this  verdict  of  impeachment  like  the 
passions  of  the  hour  demand  that 
you  do,  remember  that  a million  dol- 
lars is  going*  to  be  turned  over  to  the 
profit  of  the  penitentiary  system  that 
has  been  made  under  by  manage- 
ment. Don’t  forget  that  in  the  pur- 
chase of  a farm  I made  $250,000  for 
the  State  of  Texas.  You  say  that  is 
my  idea  about  it.  On  the  floor  of 
the  Senate  that  purchase  was  ques- 
tioned. • I made  the  statement  that 
they  might  get  twelve  prohibi- 
tion bankers  that  live  in  the  Panhan- 
dle of  Texas  and  let  them  go  over  to 
see  that  farm  and  if  it  wasn’t  worth 
a hundred  thousand  dollars  more 
than  the  State  paid  for  it.  I would 
resign  from  the  office;  on  the  other 
hand,  if  it  was  proved  that  it  was 
worth  that  much  money  a statement 
would  be  made,  an  admision  would 
be  made,  that  a misrepresentation 
had  been  made  against  the  Governor 
of  this  State.  I bought  a farm  up 
n North  Texas;  the  State  had  pre- 
viously paid  $40  an  acre  for  land  ad- 
joining it;  I bought  land,  adjoining 
that  for  $15  an  acre,  better  land. 
I am  not  reflecting  on  anybody,  but 
I am  showing  you  the  facts,  and  you 
must  admit  that  if  I had  been  a bad 
man,  seeking  to  prostitute  the  priv- 
ileges of  my  office  for  private  gain, 
I have  had  every  opporutnity  to  make 
not  only  three  or  four  or  five  hun- 
dred dollars  interest  on  a little  de- 
posit, but  I could  have  made  a hun- 
dred thousand  dollars  if  I had  been 
the  bad  man  they  want  to  make  me. 
Is  it  possible,  because  I have  done 
something  for  the  country  schools 
of  this  State,  are  you  going  to  lose 
sight  of  it  all,  are  you  going  to  lose 
sight  of  everything  that  has  been 
done  for  the  upbuilding  of  thi^ 
State,  for  the  educational  interests 
of  this  State,  a man  who  spent  thirty 
thousand  dollars  to  get  the  privilege 
to  do  something  for  the  country 
schools  of  this  State,  where  the  sys- 


874 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


tem  of  education  has  received  an 
impetus  like  it  has  not  had  in  thirty 
years,  when  throughout  the  broad 
land  of  Texas  the  facilities  for  edu- 
cation to  every  boy  and  girl  had 
been  extended,  where  they  can  go 
without  price  and  get  an  education? 
Is  it  possible,  where  I took  a stand 
for  the  laboring  classes  of  the 
country,  and  I have  been  able  to 
declare  my  position  about  the  labor- 
ing classes  of  this  State,  is  it  pos- 
sible you  are  going  to  forget  all 
that  and  impeach  me  on  the  same 
little  ground  of  whether  I wanted 
to  steal  $5600  or  whether  I wanted 
to  make  the  interest  on  a $250,000 
deposit  for  forty-five  days?  Gen- 
tlemen, you  ought  to  take  a broad 
view  of  this  matter.  General  Crane, 
the  Official  Spanker,  as  the  saying 
is,  is  going  to  romp  all  over  me. 
1 understand  what  is  coming.  It 
seems  in  the  broad,  unequal  strife 
of  life,  down  the  stream  which  I 
am  now  sailing,  there  is  a boat 
named  “The  M.  M.  Crane,”  upon 
that  boat  nine  or  ten  managers  de- 
manding that  he  earn  his  money. 
When  he  begins  to  spank  me  and 
tell  you  what  a bad  man  I am,  re- 
member it  is  nothing  personal  to 
him,  but  it  is  because  the  managers 
tell  him,  “Now,  Crane,  you  must 
earn  your  money,”  and  when  he 
lets  up  for  a little  bit  and  breaks 
out  again,  don’t  think  there  is  any- 
thing personal  about  it,  but  be- 
cause the  managers  are  demanding 
of  him  that  he  maintain  his  record 
of  Official  Spanker,  and  when  he 
has  done  that  to  his  heart’s  content, 
when  he  has  said  all  the  bitter 
things  against  me  which  he  is  go- 
ing to  say,  ask  yourselves  the  ques- 
tion whether  after  it  is  all  said  and 
done,  before  High  Heaven,  con- 
scious of  your  duty  to  yourselves, 
has  the  Governor  been  guilty  of  any 
wrong  that  would  justify  impeach- 
ment? Lay  aside  the  passions  of 
the  hour,  try  me  like  you  would 
try  anybody  else,  not  any  bias  for 
me  or  any  prejudice  against  me,  but 
extending  to  me  like  has  been  ex- 
tended to  all  men  in  all  ages  the 
eternal  laws  of  justice.  I thank  you. 

Senator  Page.  Mr  President,  it 
is  now  about  11:25  and  I don’t 
think  Mr.  Crane  would  like  to  begin 
his  argument  before  lunch. 

Senator  Bee:  Mr.  President? 

The  Chair:  The  Senator  from 
Bexar. 


Senator  Bee:  I wish  the  Chair 
would  admonish  the  galleries  then, 
if  we  adjourn  as  a Court,  we  will 
continue  as  a Senate,  and  they 
must  permit  us  to  continue  our  de- 
liberations quietly. 

The  Chair:  The  Chair  will  da 
that  as  soon  as  this  matter  is  dis- 
posed of. 

Senator  Page:  Mr.  President. 

The  Chair:  The  Senator  from 

Bastrop. 

Senator  Page:  If  I might  be 
permitted  to  ask  General  Crane 
if  he  prefers  not  to  have  his  argu- 
ment broken  into. 

General  Crane:  I would  prefer 
to  adjourn. 

Senator  Page:  I make  the  sug- 
gestion in  the  light  of  General 
Crane’s  statement,  that  we  rise  un- 
til 2 o'clock. 

Senator  Strickland:  Mr.  Presi- 
dent. 

The  Chair:  The  Senator  from 
Anderson. 

Senator  Strickland:  I would  like 
to  amend  that  and  make  it  1:30. 

The  Chair:  The  Chair  desires  to 
state  this  to  those  in  the  gallery, 
the  Senate  will  be  in  session  as 
soon  as  the  Court  rises,  and  if  any 
of  you  remain  where  you  are  we 
want  you  to  keep  order.  Those  in 
favor  of  the  motion  that  the  Court 
rise  until  1:30  this  afternoon  sig- 
nify by  saying  aye,  those  opposed 
no.  The  ayes  have  it.  We  will 
rise  to  meet  at  1:30  this  afternoon. 

Thereupon  at  11:24J  a.  m.,  the 
court  recessed  until  1:30  p.  m. 


In  the  Senate. 

President  Pro  Tem.  Dean  in  the 
Chair  at  11:25  o'clock  a.  m. 


Recess. 

At  11:30  o’clock  a.  m.  Senator 
Clark  moved  that  the  Senate  recess, 
until  1:30  o’clock  today. 

The  motion  prevailed. 


After  Recess. 

( Afternoon  Session. ) 

The  Senate  was  called  to  order 
by  President  Pro  Tem.  Dean  at  1:30' 
o’clock. 


*4 


SENATE  JOURNAL.  875- 


In  the  Court. 

Saturday,  September  22,  1917. 

Afternoon  Session. 

(Pursuant  to  the  recess  adjourn- 
rived  for  the  convening  of  the  Court, 
of  Impeachment,  reconvened  at  1:30 
o’clock  p.  m.) 

The  Chair:  The  time  having  ar- 
rived for  the  convening  of  the  Court, 
the  Court  will  come  to  order.  Every- 
body be  seated.  The  Chair  will  say 
for  the  benefit  of  those  who  may  not 
have  been  here  this  morning  and 
who  are  now  in  the  Chamber  and  in 
the  galleries  as  our  guests,  that  we 
do  not  want  any  kind  of  demon- 
stration, and  any  time  during  the 
progress  of  the  proceedings  this 
afternoon,  we  can  not  tolerate  any 
demonstration.  I believe  that  all 
you  need  to  know  now  is  to  be  re- 
minded that  that  will  be  so  much 
out  of  order  that  the  assistants  of 
the  Sergeant  at  Arms  are  instructed 
to  put  out  of  the  gallery  or  out  of 
the  Chamber  any  one  offending  in 
that  way.  Let  us  have  order,  now. 

General  Crane:  May  it  please  the 
Court,  my  voice  being  a little  out  of 
order,  I take  this  elevation  so  as  to 
make  myself  heard  more  easily  (re- 
ferring to  the  platform  of  the  wit- 
ness stand). 

I congratulate  the  Court  upon  the 
fact  that  this  case  is  nearing  the  end, 
and  that  soon  the  result  will  be 
known  and  announced.  It  is  an  im- 
portant proceeding,  important  in 
many  ways;  important  because  it  is 
the  first  of  its  kind  that  we  have 
had  in  this  State,  and  because  it  is 
necessary  for  the  State  to  announce 
in  this  authoritative  way  the  highest 
court  of  impeachment  fhat  could  be 
convened  in  this  State,  and  the  only 
one,  what  the  policy  of  this  State 
will  be  in  the  future  towards  its 
officers;  that  is  to  say,  whether  or 
not  its  officials,  from  the  highest  to 
the  lowest,  shall  be  governed  by  the 
law,  or  whether  or  not  they  shali 
have  a discretion  commensurate  with 
their  imaginations.  I am  not  going 
to  waste  but  little  time  in  discussing 
the  kind  of  a case,  as  to  whether 
it  is  a civil  or  criminal,  further  than 
to  say  that  this  Court  settled  that,  as 
1 understood,  by  ruling  on  the  admis- 
sion of  the  evidence  early  in  the  pro- 
ceedings. No  appeal  having  been 
taken  from  that,  I take  it  for  granted 


that  the  Court  has  determined  that 
so  far  as  this  case  is  concerned,  that 
it  is  not  a criminal  case,  but  that  it 
is  one  of  its  own  kind — sui  generis, 
so  to  speak,  neither  civil  nor  crim- 
inal. It  certainly  has  none  of  the 
essentials  of  a criminal  case,  in  that 
former  jeopardy  cannot  be  pleaded; 
and  besides  that,  all  of  the  crimes  in 
Texas  are  divided  into  two  classes, 
felonies  and  misdemeanors;  of  the 
felonies  the  district  court  is  given  ex- 
clusive jurisdiction,  and  of  the  mis- 
demeanors, the  jurisdiction  as  to 
them  is  divided  between  the  district 
court,  the  county  court,  and  the  jus- 
tice’s court.  Our  Supreme  Court, 
speaking  through  Chief  Justice 
Gaines,  in  a very  able  opinion,  point- 
ed out  those  facts,  and  as  a neces- 
sary conclusion,  that  all  criminal 
cases  must  be  tried  in  a different 
way,  and  in  the  courts  in  which  the 
Constitution  has  placed  that  respon- 
sibility. 

It  ought  not  to  be  necessary  for 
me  to  suggest  to  you  that  there  is  no* 
personal  feeling  involved  in  this  case. 
The  Board  of  Managers,  for  whom  I 
speak,  and  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives that  meet  at  the  other  end  of 
the  Capitol,  have  not  been  moved  by 
any  personal  feeling  toward  Governor 
Ferguson,  but  they  have  moved  sole- 
ly by  a sense  of  duty  to  their  con- 
stituents at  home,  because,  after  all, 
in  every  government,  State,  munic- 
ipal, or  national,  its  ultimate  purpose 
is  to  protect  the  weak  against  the 
strong,  and  to  compel  obedience  to 
the  law  by  everyone,  whether  he  be  a 
private  citizen  or  an  official.  I need 
not  call  your  attention  either  to  the 
fact  that  it  is  not  necessary  for  any- 
one who  is  sought  to  be  impeached 
to  be  guilty  of  a statutory  crime.  I 
do  not  go  to  the  extent,  nor  do  I 
believe  all  of  the  authorities  bear  it 
out,  but  yet  they  do  nearly  so,  of 
some  of  the  distinguished  New  York 
lawyers  in  the  Sulzer  trial,  who  said 
that  an  impeachable  offense  was 
whatever  the  Senate  of  the  State 
thought  it  to  be,  that  they  could 
make  a trial  matter  an  impeachable 
offense  if  they  saw  fit.  I concur  in 
that  opinion  this  far,  that  the  Sen- 
ate can  make  any  offense  or  any  mis- 
conduct upon  the  part  of  an  official 
an  impeachable  offense  if  they  be- 
lieve that  it  disqualifies  him  or  that 
it  impairs  his  usefulness  as  an  offi- 
cer, they  can  remove  him;  in  other 


876 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


words,  it  is  an  exercise  of  the  same 
power  that  in  later  days  has  been 
sought  to  be  exercised  by  the  recall, 
it  is  simply  an  official  recall  of  an 
officer,  an  executive,  who  ceases  to 
obey  the  law  and  who  does  business 
in  an  entirely  different  way.  But  in 
this  case  we  are  not  left  to  that  sort 
of  conjecture,  we  are  not  left  to  that 
sort  of  suggestion  as  a ground  for 
impeachment  in  this  case,  because  I 
will  show  you  before  I have  gone 
very  far  that  Governor  Ferguson  has 
not  only  disobeyed  the  law,  but  that 
if  his  conduct  is  to  be  construed  or 
governed  by  the  laws  that  govern 
the  conduct  of  the  average  citizen, 
he  can  not  avoid  the  consequences — • 
or  he  can  not  avoid  the  conclusion 
that  he  has  violated  the  criminal, 
statutes  of  this  State. 

Now,  before  I go  further,  too,  allow 
me  to  correct  a statement  made  by  his 
counsel  and  himself  as  to  admissions 
of  Mr.  Harris  in  his  opening  argu- 
ment, Mr.  Harris  did  not  admit,  as  I 
understood  him — and  I have  the  lan- 
guage here  before  me  (referring  to 
Senate  Journal) — that  he  ought  not  to 
be  impeached  for  any  one  of  these 
charges  made  against  him,  but  because 
of  all  of  them.  He  made  that  admis- 
sion only  in  reference  to  one,  and  that 
was  the  Woodman  charge;  he  said 
that  if  that  was  the  only  one  that  he 
would  admit  that  probably  he  ought 
not  to  be  impeached,  but  he  asked  his 
impeachment  because  we  had  proven 
all  of  the  twenty-one  charges,  and  he 
said,  “I  think  either  one  of  twenty 
certainly  would  justify  his  impeach- 
ment, even  if  there  was  nothing  else 
proven  against  him.  Now,  for  ex- 
ample, we  find  that  when  he  came\ 
into  office  he  had  scarcely  warmed  his, 
official  seat  before  there  was  turned 
over  to  him  $101,607.18  of  the  people’s 
money — not  his  money,  but  belonging 
to  the  entire  people,  for  the  purpose 
of  rebuilding  the  Canyon  City  Normal 
School.  That  money  should  have  been 
deposited  in  the  State  Treasury,  but 
it  was  not.  His  predecessor,  however, 

I can  say  in  his  justification — or, 
rather,  his  mitigation,  if  not  in  justi- 
fication, he  deposited  that  money  in 
banks  in  which  the  then  Governor  was 
not  interested  and  on  which  he  re- 
ceived interest,  and  took  security  for 
every  dollar,  so  as  to  insure  the  State 
against  any  loss  and  make  the  money 
earn  interest  in  the  meantime.  Gov- 
ernor Ferguson  took  that  money  when 


it  was  put  into  his  hands  and  put  at 
least  half  of  it,  $50,000  of  it  in  his 
bank,  at  Temple — not  all,  at  any  rate, 
but  that  much  ultimately  found  its 
way  there  as  the  money  was  collected. 
That  bank,  remember,  had  not  made 
one  penny  of  dividends,  hasn’t  made 
any  in  the  past  two  years,  as  he  has 
testified.  He  says  that  that  money 
was  not  intended  to  be  loaned  out,  to 
profit  him,  and  he  exhibits  a letter  ac- 
companying his  remittance,  that  no 
loan  was  to  be  based  upon  that  de- 
posit. But,  I take  it,  that  he  cannot 
be  and  could  not  be,  and  was  not 
ignorant  of  the  fact  that  that  money 
was  loaned  out,  because  the  statements 
of  the  bank,  and  his  bank  examiners, 
appointed  by  his  appointee,  showed 
that  while  that  money  was  in  the  bank 
the  reserve  was  always  less  than  the 
fund  that  Governor  Ferguson  had 
placed  there.  Now,  think  of  it!  He 
took  $50,000  of  the  State’s  money  and 
put  it  into  the  bank,  and  the  reserve 
Or  cash  surplus  of  that  bank  during 
me  time  that  that  money  was  in  it, 
was  less  than  the  amount  of  the  State’s 
money  which  Governor  Ferguson  had 
deposited  there.  Now.  if  that  money 
had  not  been  there,  that  reserve  would 
have  had  to  have  been  taken  out  of. 
some  other  funds;  he  cannot  escape 
the  conclusion,  and  he  ought  in  all 
frankness  to  admit  it,  that  the  deposit 
of  that  $50,000  in  the  Temple  Bank 
was  advantageous  to  him,  was  ad- 
vantageous to  the  other  stockholders, 
and  he  ought  not  to  escape  the  con- 
clusion either  that  it  was  deposited 
there  for  the  purpose  of  being  profit- 
able to  that  bank.  But  then  comes 
another  question;  after  that  money 
had  been  there  for  some  time,  on  the 
^23d  day  of  August,  1915,  $5600  of  that 
money  was  appropriated  to  pay  his 
private,  personal  debt  of  $5600  due  to 
the  First  National  Bank  of  Temple. 
That  was  on  the  23d  day  of  August, 
1915.  On  the  first  or  second,  or  third 
of  September  of  the  same  year,  a state- 
ment was  sent  to  him,  containing  the 
three  other  items  of  money  that  had 
been  remitted  to  the  American  Na- 
tional Bank,  and  also  containing  this 
item  of  $5600,  with  a voucher,  plainly 
written,  stating  $5,000  on  the  note  to 
the  First  National  Bank  of  Temple, 
$600  in  the  next  line,  interest,  making 
a total  of  $5600,  and  with  a further 
notation  in  ink,  “Note  sent  to  Aus- 
tin.” Now,  his  Private  Secretary  sit- 
ting here  on  this  witness  stand  stated 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


877 


that  he  never  read  that  report.  We 
are  obliged,  Senators,  to  examine  this 
testimony  in  the  light  of  the  ordi- 
nary understanding  of  men,  and  the 
ordinary  habits  of  men.  A man  sends 
and  gets  a bank  statement  with  only 
four  items  in  it.  it  is  a statement 
affecting  a trust  fund  for  the  use  of 
which  he,  at  least,  has  assumed,  or  is 
clothed  with  the  power  of  disbursing; 
he  gets  that  statement,  and  to  say  that 
he  never  looks  into  it,  challenges  the 
credulty  of  any  man — never  examines 
the  four  items  to  see  whether  or  not 
they  are  proper  charges  against  that 
trust  fund,  never  looks  to  see  whether 
the  money  has  been  properly  applied, 
01  whether  it  has  been  applied  to  the 
wrong  account.  If  that  be  true,  then, 
Governor  Ferguson  ought  to  be  re- 
moved from  office,  because  he  is  unfit 
to  act  as  trustees  in  such  large  matters, 
if  he  can  let  $5600  of  trust  funds  slip 
into  his  other  trousers’  pocket  with- 
out ever  ascertaining  the  fact  until 
the  grand  jury  points  it  out.  Now, 
that  is  not  all.  In  the  following  April 
— the  following  April,  Governor  Fergu- 
son wrote  a letter  to  the  same  bank 
to  send  him  a statement  of  his  guber- 
natorial account.  That  statement 
came,  and  yet  it  was  not  discovered 
that  $5600  of  the  people’s  money  had 
been  applied  to  the  payment  of  the 
Governor’s  debt.  And  yet,  now,  Sena- 
tors, there  is  another  suggestion; 
in  that  same  April,  that  same 
month  of  April,  the  27th  day, 
he  had  to  pay  for  the  Canyon 
City  Normal,  the  last  payments  on 
it.  He  knew  the  amount  of  money 
he  had  on  hand  to  make  that  pay- 
ment was  $101,607.18.  He  had  all 
of  that  at  Temple  transwerred  to 
the  American  National  Bank,  he 
knew  it  was  brought  down  here.  In 
the  meantime,  he  had  deposited 
money  of  the  Adjutant  General’s 
office,  something  over  $3,000.00,  he 
had  deposited  some  of  the  King’s 
Highway  funds,  or  other  trust  funds 
committed  to  his  care  in  the  same 
account,  and  when  he  made  his  last 
payment  on  the  Canyon  City  Nor- 
mal, it  ought  to  have  been  the  last 
of  $101,000.00,  he  overdrew  that 
account  of  about  $108,000.00,  he 
overdrew  it  $1847.50.  Now,  Sen- 
ators, let  me  ask  of  you,  is  it  pos- 
sible for  a Senator  here,  charged 
with  the  administration  of  a trust 
fund,  to  have  in  his  hands  $101,- 
607.18,  and  when  he  goes  to  pay  out 


that  trust  fund  he  knows  that  he 
has.  not  only  paid  out  what  there  is 
left  of  that,  but  he  has  paid  out 
nearly  $4,000.00  of  additional 
funds,  and  he  has  made  an  over- 
draft of  $1800.00,  or,  rather — yes, 
an.  overdraft  of  $1847.50,  and,  yet, 
never  discover  any  of  that  trust 
fund  had  been  misapplied.  I would 
like  to  believe,  Senators,  that  he 
did  not  know.  But  he  was  called 
upon  then  to  make  a deposit  to 
cover  that  amount.  He  deposited 
$1850.00  out  of  his  personal  funds 
to  cover  the  deficiency.  Why  should 
he  have  been  depositing  his  per- 
sonal funds  to  cover  a deficiency  in 
the  trust  funds,  if  he  did  not  know 
that  some  of  those  trust  funds  had 
been  improperly  used?  Then,  you 
will  recall  that  while  the  witness 
was  on  the  stand,  I asked  him  to 
take  the  amount  of  the  overdraft, 
$1847.50,  the  amount  of  the  Adju- 
tant General’s  fund,  the  amount  of 
the  King’s  Highway  fund,  and  add 
them  together,  and  see  what  they 
made.  He  added  them  and  they 
made  the  fateful  sum  of  $5600.00, 
the  precise  amount  that  had  been 
abstracted  by  the  Temple  State 
Bank  and  applied  to  the  payment 
of  the  Governor’s  debt.  And,  yet, 
Senators,  he  never  discovered  that 
loss,  ,he  tells  you,  never  discov- 
ered it  until  on  the  20th  day  of 
July,  1917,  more  than  a year — 
nearly  two  years,  after  the  loss  had 
occurred,  and  then  it  was  pointed 
to  him — the  Governor  of  this  great 
imperial  State — it  was  pointed  to 
him  by  the  Grand  Jury  of  Travis 
County!  My  God!  When  has  it  be- 
come necessary,  since  when,  for  the 
Governor  of  the  State  to  have  a 
grand  jury  of  a county  point  out 
to  him  a breach  of  trust  of  which 
he  has  been  guilty?  It  is  humiliat- 
ing to  every  man  of  us  here  that  any 
man  clothed  with  the  power  of  exe- 
cuting a trust,  entrusted  with  cash 
that  does  not  belong  to  him,  but 
to  others,  to  let  that  cash  escape 
from  his  fingers  and  never  discover 
it  until  a grand  jury  calls  on  him 
to  account!  Now,  I appeal  to  you 
lawyers  here — and  I see  you  sitting 
around  me,  many  of  you  who  handle 
all  kinds  of  cases  and  all  kinds  of 
trust  funds — there  is  not  one  of  you 
here  this  afternoon  who  would  be 
entrusted  with  $100,000.00  to  thus 
distribute,  that  it  would  be  possible 
to  get  $5600.00  out  of  your  hands 


878 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


without  your  discovering  that 
fact?  I think  you  ought  to  give  to 
the  Governor  what  he  claims — that 
he  is  a man  at  least  of  ordinary  in- 
telligence and  ordinary  capacity, 
and  I take  it  you  will  reach  the 
conclusion  that  it  could  not  have 
escaped  him  either,  without  his 
knowledge,  even  his  consent. 

I am  not  going  to  discuss  all  of 
these  charges,  the  time  is  too  short 
and  I do  not  intend  to  consume  all 
that  is  alloted  to  me;  but  there  are 
some  of  them  to  which  I do  wish  to 
call  your  attention. 

When  he  came  down  here  to  Aus- 
tin, he  tells  you,  and  all  of  the  of- 
ficers that  who  have  testified,  it  had 
grown  up  to  be  a habit  here  to 
do — what?  To  make  their  collec- 
tions of  checks  that  were  sent  them 
paying  the  official  fees  or  charges, 
the  government  collections,  take 
those  checks,  deposit  them  in  a 
bank  for  collection,  and  make  set- 
tlement with  the  Treasury  every 
thirty  days;  that  had  grown  to  be 
a custom.  But  when  he  came  here, 
what  happened?  A conference  of 
some  kind  was  immediately  held 
between  the  Banking  Commissioner 
and  himself — or,  at  least,  that  was 
the  result  of  it — and  then  between 
himself  and  the  Secretary  of  State, 
in  which  it  was  understood  that  the 
public  funds  of  all  kinds  and  char- 
acters that  were  collected  by  those 
officers,  settlements  for  that  should 
not  be  made  except  at  the  end  of 
a ninety-day  period.  And  then,  for 
the  first  time  in  the  history  of  this 
State,  the  money  of  the  people  of 
Texas,  your  money  and  my  money, 
the  money  that  the  taxpayers  had 
paid  in,  or,  at  least,  it  belonged  to 
the  taxpayers, — that  was  deposited 
under  the  direction  and  with  the 
consent  of  the  Governor  of  this 
great  State  where  it  would  bring  a 
revenue  to  the  bank  in  which  he 
was  a stockholder!  As  I look  at 
this  magnificent  audience  before  me 
now,  as  I look  at  this  tribunal,  the 
Senate  of  Texas,  representing  the 
best  thought  and  feeling  and  tradi- 
tions of  this  great  people,  I cannot 
but  reflect  back  and  wonder  what 
would  have  been  thought  of  old 
Richard  Coke,  or  old\  Governor1 
Roberts — the  “Old  Alcalde” — and 
John  Ireland,  the  chivalrous  Sul 
Ross,  if  it  had  been  found  or  be- 
lieved that  they  were  acting,  or 
either  of  them,  as  a collecting  agent 


for  a bank  in  which  they  happened 
to  own  stock,  or  of  using  the  ppb- 
lic  funds  by  deposting  them  where 
they  would  bring  a revenue  to  them. 
No.  no.  If  that  had  been  true  and 
it  had  been  discovered,  the  names 
of  those  gentlemen  whom  I have 
mentioned  . would  not  be  honored 
now  throughout  the  confines  of 
this  great  State  as  unselfish,  pub- 
lic servants.  But  they  say,  ' was 
that  prohibited  by  law?  I answer, 
“Yes.” 

Listen,  Senators- — but  let  us  look 
at  the  extent  of  it  before  we  read 
the  law.  It  was  not  an  occasional 
deposit,  it  was  a deposit  running  all 
the  years,  and,  mark  you,  the  sub- 
terfuge, the  little  excuses  made  for 
it — why,  they  had  a witness  on  the 
stand  here  from  the  Secretary  of 
State’s  office  who  had  sent  $5,000.- 
00  to  the  Temple  State  Bank,  and  it 
stayed  there  eleven  months,  and  it 
is  there  yet,  re-enforced  by  $10,- 
000.00  more.  “Why,”  they  said, 
“that  $5,000.00  were  overcharges 
where  somebody  in  paying  fran- 
chise taxes  paid  fifty  cents  too 
much,  and  we  are  unable  to  refund 
it  to  him,  and  it  is  that  $5,000.00 
that  was  sent  up  to  Temple.”  Well, 
now,  that  is  not  true,  and  they  aft- 
erwards admitted  it.  What  they  did 
have  in  the  vaults  of  the  Treasury, 
or  in  the  bank,  was  $250,000.00, 
t sopie  of  which,  of  course,  were 
fhose  little  itemte,  and  they  took 
tthe  $5,000.00  and  sent  it  to  Temple. 
At  is  $5,000.00  of  the  people’s 
money.  A little  bit  later  they  put 
$60,000.00 — the  Governor  took  it 
in  his  pocket  up  there  and  deposted 
it  in  that  bank, — not  for  collection, 
but  it  was  cash.  A little  bit  later 
they  took  $250,000.00,  took  that 
to  Temple  and  deposited,  nit  in  that 
bank;  and  at  one  time  they  had  in 
that  bank  $354,000.00  of  money  be- 
longing to  the  Secretary  of  State — 
that  is,  in  his  hands,  that  he  ought 
to  have  turned  in  to  the  State 
Treasury,  but  instead  of  that  he 
turned  it  into  the  Governor’s  bank. 
iHow  is  that  money  secured?  You 
gentlemen  know  the  law.  A Secre- 
tary of  State  gives  a bond  for  $25,- 
000.00,  and  for  that  bond  of  $25,- 
000.00  he  takes  $354,000.00  away 
from  the  Capital  into  a distant 
county  and  deposits  it  in  a bank 
wrich  has  been  unable  to  earn  a 
dividend  for  two  years — no  security, 
no  nothing. 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


879 


Now,  then,  let’s  see  what  the  law 
was,  and  the  Governor  said  he  knew 
what  it  was.  It  says  (reading  from 
statute) : 

“That  if  any  officer  of  the  govern- 
ment who  is  by  law  a receiver  or 
depositary  of  public  money,  or  any 
clerk  or  other  person  employed  about 

Jthe  office  of  such  officer,  shall  fraud- 
ulently take  or  misapply  or  convert 
it  to  his  own  use,  any  part  of  such 
public  money,  or  secrete  the  same 
with  intent  to  take,  misapply,  or 
convert  it  to  his  own  use,  or  shall 
take  or  deliver  the  same  to  any  per- 
son, knowing  that  he  is  not  entitled 
to  receive  it,  he  shall  be  punished 
by  confinement  in  the  penitentiary 
for  a term  of  not  less  than  two  nor 
more  than  ten  years.” 

Now,  that  was  the  law  of  1858. 
In  18  7 9,  twenty-one  years  later,  they 
amended  it  as  follows: 

“Within  the  term  ‘misapplication 
of  public  money,’  are  included  the 
following:  The  use  of  any  public 

\.<  money  in  the  hands  of  any  officer  of 
the  government,  for  any  purpose 
whatsoever,  save  that  of  transmit- 
ting or  transporting  the  same  to  the 
seat  of  government,  and  its  payment 
to  the  Treasurer.” 

Could  any  man  misunderstand  that 
language?  There  is  not  a layman 
here  who  does  not  know  what  it 
means.  By  misapplication  of  public 
funds  it  meant  what?  “Any  use 
whatsoever  of  that  money,  save  that 
of  transmitting  it  into  the  State 
Treasury.”  But  that  is  not  all, 
here  is  another: 

“The  deposit  by  any  officer  of  the 
government  of  public  money  in  his 
hands,  at  any  other  place  than  the 
Treasury  of  the  State,  when  the 
Treasury  is  accessible  and  open  for 
business,  or  permitting  the  same  to 
remain  on  d^dsit  at  such  forbidden 
place  after  the  Treasury  is  open.” 

Now,  that  is  one  of  the  things  that 
the  government  sought  to  compel — to 
compel  the  officers  who  got  possession 
of  public  money  in  the  State  to  de- 
posit it  in  the  State  Treasury,  and  1 
say  now  that  it  would  be  misapplica- 
tion of  that  fund  if  he  used  it  for  any 
purpose,  or  if  you  deposited  that 
money  elsewhere,  provided  the  State 
Treasury  is  open  for  the  reception  of 
that  money  and  the  transaction  of 
business. 

I dislike  to  say  this,  Senators,  I 
would  like  to  say  it  otherwise — but 
how  Governor  Ferguson  and  his  Sec- 


retary of  State  can  escape  the  proposi- 
tion that  they  have  violated  this  crim- 
inal statute,  I cannot  understand. 
Did  they  use,  I ask  you,  did  they  use 
this  public  money  in  the  hands  of  an 
officer  of  the  government  for  any  pur- 
pose whatsoever  except  of  transmit- 
ting it  or  transporting  it  to  the  seat 
of  government?  I will  ask  you  to 
answer,  did  they  deposit  this  money 
that  was  in  their  hands  at  any  other 
place  than  the  Treasury  of  the  State, 
when  the  Treasury  is  accessible  and 
open  for  business,  or  permit  the  same 
to  remain  on  deposit  at  such  forbidden 
place  after  the  Treasury  is  open?  I 
leave  you  to  answer  that,  Senators. 
If  you  can  say  in  the  face  of  this 
record  that  that  is  true,  that  he  never 
deposited  the  public  funds  except  in 
the  Treasury  of  the  State  when  it  was 
open.  I know  you  can’t  say  that,  be- 
cause the  evidence  is  all  the  other 
way — the  admissions  of  the  Governor 
are  all  the  other  way.  Now,  how  does 
he  meet  that  situation?  He  says  that 
it  must  be  deposited  with  “a  fraudu- 
lent intent.”  I say  no.  Senators, 
you  lawyers,  you  must  say  no.  That 
statute  does  not  say  that  the  deposit 
of  money  with  “fraudulent  intent.” 
No.  But  the  deposit  of  it  anywhere 
except  in  the  Treasury.  Now,  you 
will  remember  the  banking  statute — 
the  Governor  admits  that  part  of  it, 
that  if  . the  president  of  a bank,  or  an 
officer  of  a State  bank,  shall  borrow 
money  without  the  consent  of  his  di- 
rectors, that  that  is  of  itself  a felony 
Ver  se.  No  fraudulent  intent  there 
necessary,  it  is  simply  a statutory 
crime'  for  the  protection  of  the  best 
interests  of  the  State.  And  this  is  a 
statutory  crime  to  prevent  just  such 
conditions  as  have  grown  up  here 
within  this  State  within  the  last  two 
years. 

Here  is  a pitiful  circumstance  con- 
nected with  this  matter — during  the, 
period  that  this  money  was  being  de- 
posited at  Temple  and  elsewhere,  a 
deficiency  arose  in  the  Treasury,  and 
the  poor  wretches  to  whom  the  State 
was  indebted — some  of  them  poor  and 
some  of  them  otherwise — were  obliged 
to  either  discount  their  warrants  or 
await  calls  made  for  them  later.” 
Why?  Because  the  money  was  not  in 
the  Treasury  to  make  these  payments! 
The  money  was  deposited  in  private 
banks  here  and  there,  and  everywhere, 
to  suit  the  convenience  of  the  official 


880 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


family,  instead  of  in  obedience  to  the 
law,  depositing  it  where  it  ought  to  be. 

If  there  is  any  Senator  here  who 
is  doubtful  about  an  impeachment 
proceeding  except  for  a statutory 
crime,  he  may  remove  his  doubts.  A 
statutory  crime  has  been  committed 
over  and  over  again.  The  Governor 
himself  carried  a part  of  the  money 
to  Temple,  he  was  present,  and,  as 
his  testimony  shows,  and  his  declara-\ 
tions  show,  introduced  into  this  rec- 
ord, he  encouraged  the  Secretary  of< 
State  to  do  the  same,  telling  him  that 
the  larger  he  made  the  deposit,  the 
better  it  would  please  him.  Now,  that 
still  is  not  all.  The  State  of  Texas 
passed  a banking  law  establishing  a 
comprehensive  system  of  State  banks. 
It  was  more  liberal  in  some  of  Us 
provisions,  very  much  so,  than  the 
National  Banking  Act.  The  Federal 
government,  in  establishing  its  bank- 
ing system,  provides  that  no  bank  shall 
lend  more  than  ten  per  cent  of  its 
\ capital  to  any  one  man — capital  and 
‘ surplus.  This  State  law  provided  no 
bank  should  lend,  under  any  circum- 
stances, more  than  thirty  per  cent  of 
its  money  to  any  one  man — of  its  cap- 
ital and  surplus.  The  Governor 
owned  a one-fourth  interest,  or  a little 
more,  in  the  Temple  State  Bank. 
When  he  left  there  and  came  down 
to  Austin,  he  owed  it  about  $12,000. 
The  deposits  of  the  State’s  money  be- 
gan to  increase  in  that  direction — or, 
rather,  began  and  were  increased,  and 
the  Governor’s  credit  line  was  imme- 
diately increased.  It  grew  and  grew, 
until  his  overdrafts  at  some  periods 
amounted  to  $44,000  or  $45,000  more 
than  the  statutory  amount,  and  was 
finally  increased  with  notes  and  all 
to  practically  $170,000.  Now,  remem- 
ber, that  bank  had  $125,000  capital,  it 
had  a colorable  surplus  of  $25,000  or 
$30,000,  but  it  was  carrying  dead  notes 
that  were  said  to  be  worthless,  and 
that  the  bank  examiners  were  insist- 
ing should  be  charged  off,  of  about 
$40,000.  So,  you  see,  the  surplus  was 
practically  exhausted.  It  carried  its 
bank  building  at  $25,000, — at  $100,000 
— so  that  the  only  capital  stock  avail- 
able to  that  bank  for  business  pur- 
poses was  $25,000  cash.  The  money 
upon  which  they  must  do  business, 
then,  must  come  from  the  deposits, 
and  of  theSe  deposits,  when  they  came  < 
in,  the  Governor  procured  to  be  loaned 
to  him,  $170,000.  Now,  let  me  read 


5 you  that  law — there  is  another  crim- 
. inal  statute  (reading): 

) “Any  officer,  director,  or  employe  of 
t any  State  bank  or  trust  company  who 
j knowingly  or  wilfully  fails  or  refuses 
L to  perform  any  duties  imposed  on  him 
J by  law,  or  who  shall  do,  perform,  or 
„ assist  in  doing  or  performing  any  act 
' or  transaction  prohibited,  by  the  pro- 
visions of  this  law,  for  the  punish- 
5 ment  of  which  provision  is  not  other- 
-\  wise  made,  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of 
- \ a misdemeanor,  and  upon  conviction 
['^thereof,  shall  be  punished  by  a fine 
: of  not  less  than  $500  or  more  than 
i $1,000,  or  by  imprisonment  in  fthe 
: county  jail  for  a term  of  not  less  than 

> thirty  days  nor  more  than  ninety  days, 

• or  by  both  such  fine  and  impris.on- 
. ment.” 

> Now,  when  the  Governor  procured 
: — or  the  president  or  cashier  of  that 

bank  lent  him  money  in  excess  of 
■ thirty  per  cent  of  the  capital  stock, 
what  was  he  doing?  He  was  induc- 
1 ing  them  to  commit  a crime,  for 
which  each  one  of  them  could  be 
fined  $500 — not  less  than  $5  00,  nor 
more  than  $1000,  or  be  committed 
: to  the  county  jail  for  thirty  days,  or 
ninety  days,  or  by  both  such  fine  and 
imprisonment.  You  know  now  what 
that  means.  He  who  procures  the 
commission  of  a crime  for  his  own 
benefit  is  the  criminal  himself,  and 
Governor  Ferguson  and  the  cashier 
and  the  president  of  that  bank,  if 
the  law  had  been  enforced  in  Bell 
County,  would  all  have  been  indicted 
and  convicted  under  the  statute  for 
violating  the  Texas  law.  Now,  that 
sounds  harsh,  but  I am  only  dealing 
in  the  piain  words  of  the  record.  It 
is  not  any  pleasure  for  me  to  con- 
template a man  filling  the  high  of- 
fice of  Governor,  who  holds  his  hand 
up  before  High  Heaven  and  in  the 
presence  of  the  assembled  multitude 
swears  that  he  will  enforce  all  the 
laws  of  the  State — it  is  no  pleasure 
to  me  to  call  attention  to  the  fact 
that  he  openly  and  notoriously  vio- 
lated them  and  that  for  his  own 
profit.  It  is  as  much  the  duty  of 
Governor  Ferguson  to  enforce  the 
banking  laws  of  this  State  as  it  is 
to  enforce  the  laws  against  murder; 
it  is  as  much  his  duty  to  enforce  the 
banking  laws  of  the  State  as  it  is 
to  enforce  the  laws  against  railroads 
or  other  corporations;  it  is  as  much 
his  duty  to  enforce  the  laws  against 
the  borrower  as  it  is  the  laws  against 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


881 


the  lender.  But  how  does  he  evade 
that?  He  says  that  the  law  is  dU. 
rectory  and  that  when  the  law  comes 
in  conflict  with  business  necessities 
the  law  must  yield.  That  is  about 
his  idea — when  the  law  comes  in  con- 
flict with  business  necessities  the  law 
must  give  way.  I leave  this  Senate 
to  determine  whether  or  not  it  will 
say — whether  it  will  say  that  the 
Governor  of  this  State,  sworn  to  en- 
force the  law,  can  shamelessly  vio- 
late it.  Remember,  we  have  no  priv- 
ileged classes  in  this  country.  The 
man  who  happens  to  be  elected  to  a 
high  office  does  not  thereby  become 
a chartered  libertine.  That  man  is 
as  much  amenable  to  the  law  as  the 
humblest  citizen  in  the  land,  and  I 
thought  at  the  time  that  Governor  Fer- 
guson in  attempting  to  array  the  Uni- 
versity and  the  common  schools 
against  each  other  and  appealing  to 
the  man  at  the  forks  of  the  creek, 
the  hard-handed  laborer  and  the 
hard-working  farmer — -that  if  those 
people  knew  his  attitude,  that  they 
must  obey  the  law  but  so  far  as  the 
Governor  is  concerned  he  is  King 
and  the  King  can  do  no  wrong.  That 
is  a nice  theory  to  get  up  in  Texas. 
Why,  he  said  a rich  man  could  bor- 
row every  dollar  of  the  money  in  a 
bank,  just  so  long  as  the  loan  is  safe. 
Now,  Senators,  I need  not  remind 
you  of  the  purpose  of  this  law.  The 
purpose  of  the  banking  laws  of  this 
State  was  to. gather  together  the  re- 
sources of  each  community  in  which 
the  bank  was  established  by  having 
the  money  deposited  therein.  It  was 
a fund  available  to  every  honest  man 
who  wanted  to  carry  on  a business 
and  carry  on  the  various  enterprises 
necessary  for  the  happiness  and  well- 
being of  that  community.  It  sought 
to  prevent  the  very  thing  that  Gov- 
ernor Ferguson  has  insisted  upon — 
that  is,  borrowing  all  that  money  by 
one  man.  Why,  if  Governor  Fergu- 
son’s theory  could  prevail,  Major  Lit- 
tlefield in  this  city  could  borrow  all 
the  available  funds  of  every  State 
bank  in  Austin  and  in  Travis  County; 
he  could  borrow  every  dollar  of  them 
and  make  them  secure.  But  what 
good  would  the  banks  be  then?. 
Major  Littlefield  could  use  those 
banks  to  corral  the  resources  of  the 
community  and  become  the  master 
thereof.  In  Dallas,  the  city  where  I 
live,  I can  get  a dozen  men  there 
and  name  them  who  could  borrow 


every  dollar  in  every  State  and  Na- 
tional bank  in  that  city  that  is  avail- 
able for  lending.  But  why — why  can 
they  not  do  it?  The  Federal  Govern- 
ment, over  which  floats  the  stars  and 
stripes,  says  no  one  man  can  do  that; 
you  can  borrow  only  a small  percen- 
tage of  the  capital  stock  and  surplus 
of  that  bank;  the  rest  of  it  must  be 
left  available  for  the  other  people 
in  the  community.  The  State,  in  the 
same  way,  but  with  more  liberality, 
announces  you  can  only  borrow  thirty 
per  cent.  Governor  Ferguson  says 
the  law  must  get  out  of  the  way,  I 
need  that  money,  I can  make  it  se- 
cure and  then  that’s  all — and  did  he 
have  it  secure?  Now,  let’s  examine 
that  for  a moment.  He  said  in  his 
testimony  a little  later  on  that  he 
was  threatened  with  bankruptcy  at  a 
certain  time.  Do  you  recall?  He 
said  that  it  was  after  the  investiga- 
tion, but  now  he  will  have  to  modify 
that  statement.  Why?  Because  this 
threat  of  bankruptcy  came  to  him 
when  he  was  owing  the  Temple  State 
Bank  $150,000.  Certainly,  there  was 
*150,000  that  he  owed  that  bank, 
four  notes,  all  of  which  were  guar- 
anteed by  him.  Bankruptcy  was 
threatening  him  then.  Then  it  was 
that  his  friends  came  in  and  made 
him  that  loan  of  currency  about 
which  so  much  has  been  said.  Sup- 
pose that  bankrutpcy  had  come  on 
him;  suppose  that  that  unfortunate 
condition  had  materialized  at  that 
time.  What  wrould  have  become  of 
the  Temple  bank,  and  what  would 
have  become  of  the  honest  depositors 
whose  cash  was  therein  placed?  It 
would  have  been  a wreck — it  would 
have  been  a wreck — wrecked  not  by, 
the  rascality  of  the  officers,  but' 
wrecked  by  the  disregard  of  the  Gov- 
ernor of  the  State  for  the  laws  un- 
der which  that  bank  was  organized. 
Why,  the  Governor’s  idea  of  en- 
forcement of  the  law,  I want  to  get 
it  to  his  country  friends — he  says, 
for  instance,  that  Major  Littlefield 
could  go  in  his  bank,  contrary  to  law, 
and  take  out  a half  million  of  money 
if  necessary  and  go  to  Europe  with  it 
and  come  back  and  replace  it;  thalj 
the  fact  that  the  Major  was  able  to 
replace  it  would  make  it  not  a crime; 
but  if  a poor  stenographer  or  teller 
or  clerk  were  to  take  out  one  thou- 
sand dollars,  believing  that  he  would 
be  able  to  replace  it,  but  if  some  mis- 
fortune befell  him  and  he  could  not, 


882 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


he  would  be  a criminal  and  a felon. 
The  Governor  has  not  learned  the 
first  principles  of  democracy  or  Am- 
ericanism. He  ought  to  know  that 
the  laws  of  this  land  operate  on  the 
rich  and  the  poor  alike.  The  law 
does  not  define  a crime  for  a 
poor  man  and  leave  the  rich  man 
innocent  for  doing  the  same  act.  It 
is  the  act  that  constitutes  the  crime. 
There  never  has  been  a bank 
wrecked  in  all  this  country,  there 
never  has  been  a misapplication  of 
public  funds  in  all  this  country, 
that  in  its  incipieney  the  man  be- 
ginning to  take  the  money  did  not 
intend  to  replace  it.  Take  the  de- 
faulting cashiers,  the  defaulting 
tellers,  the  refaulting  presidents; 
that  has  always  been  true;  they 
first  take  the  money  intending  to 
replace  it,  but  finally,  finding  they 
could  not,  they  then  went  to  pieces 
hence  the  government  has  fixed 
this  law  so  that  it  makes  it  a crime 
per  se  for  a man  to  take  the  funds 
of  a bank  of  which  he  is  trustee  or 
officer  or  use  them  contrary  to  the 
letter  and  spirit  of  the  statute  un- 
der which  it  is  organized.  The  Gov- 
ernor is  unhappy  in  his  construc- 
tion of  law.  He  perverts  the  plain- 
est principles.  Now,  let  me  read 
a section  of  the  Constitution,  and  I 
believe  that  every  lady  and  every 
man  in  this  audience  even  would  not 
misapprehend  it;  I know  that  no 
Senator  would.  It  talks  about  the 
Governor’s  salary.  “He  shall  at 
stated  timesi  receive  as  compensa- 
tion fbr  his  services  an  annual  sal- 
ary of  four  thousand  dollars  and 
no  more,  and  shall  have  the  use  and 
occupancy  of  the  Governor’s  man- 
sion, fixtures  and  furniture.”  Now, 
there  is  not  a Senator  within  the' 
sound  of  my  voice  who  does  not 
know  that  that  provision  of  the 
Constitution  meant  that  he  should 
get  a salary  of  four  thousand  dol- 
lars and  should  have  the  use  of  the 
furniture  and  fixtures  in  the  Man- 
sion and  the  Mansion  itself — no 
more,  not  a penny  more.  And  yet 
Governor  Ferguson  had  appropriat- 
ed money  for  fuel,  ice,  light,  water 
and  incidentals,  and  then  proceed- 
ing to  spend  the  entire  appropria- 
tion for  incidentals,  and  I could 
scarcely  credit  my  senses  when  I 
found  out  that  by  “incidentals”  he 
meant  family  groceries,  chickens, 
butter,  eggs,  beef,  lard,  automobile 


supplies,  horse  feed,  and  all  that — 
vegetables,  in  fact  almost  the  en- 
tire living  expenses  except  clothing. 
Those  were  classed  as  incidentals. 
In  the  face  of  that — now,  it  would 
not  have  looked  so  bad — in  the  face, 
however,  of  this  fact,  that  during 
the  previous  administration  an  ap- 
propriation had  been  made  for  gro- 
ceries, but  his  Legislture  refused  to 
put  “groceries”  in  it  and  gave  him 
“incidentals.”  Then,  when  the  case 
of  Middleton  against  Terrell  was 
begun  t.he  Attorney  General  was 
asked  to  take  charge  of  the  defense, 
maintaining  the  proposition  that 
this  appropriation  for  groceries  was 
right  and  proper  and  constitutional. 
He  declined  to  do  so,  advising  Gov- 
ernor Ferguson  that  the  Legislature 
had  no  right  to  make  that  appropri- 
ation. Well,  he  knew  more  law 
than  the  Attorney  General.  They 
got  into  the  District  Court.  The 
District  Judge  advised  him  in  the 
same  way.  He  still  would  not  take 
the  District  Judge’s  opinion.  They 
then  went  to  San  Antonio,  to  the 
Court  of  Civil  Appeals  there,  and 
there  in  an  opinion  which  no  man 
can  answer  it  was  pointed  out  that 
the  framers  of  this  Constitution  in- 
tended no  such  absurdity,  and  that 
if  they  could  know  what  was  done 
in  their  name  theyj  would  almost 
turn  over  in  their  graves.  Yet  Gov- 
ernor Ferguson  proceeded  to  buy 
incidentals,  interpreting  those  in- 
cidentals as  groceries— ^all  the  eat- 
ables you  can  think  of — charging 
them  to  the  State  and  paying  for 
them  out  of  the  State  Treasury  as 
long  as  the  appropriation  lasted  and 
then  issuing  deficiency  certificates 
thereafter.  Later  the  case  came  up 
to  the  Supreme  Court.  The  Supreme 
[Court  refused  a writ  of  error,  and 
still  in  a message  to  the  Legislature 
he  asks  them  to  make  an  appropria- 
tion covering  the  deficiency  war- 
rants which  he  had  created  for  his 
family  expenses.  Senators,  the 
trouble  with  the  Governor  is  that  he 
has  an  utter  disregard  for  the  law, 
The  fact  that  it  is  a constitutional 
provision,  a decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court,  or  a statute,  makes  no  im 
pression  on  him.  He  will  not  obey 
it  whenever  it  goes  contrary  to  what 
he  thinks  ought  to  be  the  law.  That 
is  the  first  thing  that  the  lawyer 
learns.  He  learns  that  many  times 
he  is  obliged  to  submit  when  he 
thinks  that  on  principle  the  de- 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


883 


cision  is  wrong,  and  later  on  per- 
haps he  reaches  the  conclusion  that 
the  decision  itself  was  right.  Now, 
there  was  an  examination  then,  a 
committee  met  over  here  in  March, 
and  t.he  Governor  appeared  before 
it.  His  attention  was  called  to 
this  particular  provision  that  I am 
discussing,  and  he  then  and  there 
promised  under  oath — I have  got  it 
here  in  the  Journal — that  if  the  Su- 
preme Court  overruled  the  motion 
for  rehearing  he  would  immediate- 
ly pay  back  into  the  Treasury  all 
the  money  that  he  had  taken  out  for 
that  purpose.  There  can’t  be  any 
mistake  about  what  he  said.  But 
the  Supreme  Court  overruled  the 
motion  for  rehearing.  He  did  not 
pay  the  money  back  into  the  Treas- 
ury, and  he  came  over  into  the 
House  and  solemnly  stated  in  the 
presence  of  that  House  Committee 
of  the  Whole  that  he  would  not  pay 
it  back  unless  the  Legislature  re- 
quested it.  I called  his  attention  to 
the  fact  and  asked  him  if  he  did  not 
think  that  it  was  the  proper  thing 
for  the  Executive  of  the  State  to 
obey  the  law  as  ‘interpreted  by  the 
Supreme  Court  and  not  ask  to  have 
a decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  re- 
inforced by  a resolution  of  the  Leg- 
islature. Until  these  articles  of  im- 
peachment were  preferred  he  did, 
not  pay  it  back.  Since  the  he  has. 

Now,  I come  to  another  point, 
and  I am  hurrying.  The  Governor 
has.  made  a violent  attack  upon  the 
University  of  this  State.  Now,  don’t 
let  any  of  you  misapprehend  our  po- 
sition in  reference  to  that.  Nobody 
denies  the  right  of  the  Governor 
to  veto  an  appropriation  for  any  in- 
stitution that  he  thinks  is  wrong. 
But  now  f want  you  all  to  remember 
another  fact:  That  he  can  veto  any 
part  of  an  appropriation  and  leave 
the  rest  there.  But  he  practically 
vetoed  all  the  appropriation  for  the 
University,  letting  the  Legislature 
adjourn- — let  it  go.  It  would  have 
been  precisely  like  if  he  had  vetoed 
all  the  appropriation  for  the  judi- 
cial system  of  Texas  without  having 
in  mind  calling  another  session  and 
leaving  the  machinery  of  the  law 
entriely  powerless  to  execute  itself; 
it  is  the  same  thing  in  principle, 
though  perhaps  not  quite  so  disas- 
trous in  result.  The  University  is 
the  creature  of  the  Constitution.  It 
was  the  dream  of  the  fathers,  it  was 
the  result  of  the  prayers  of  the  moth- 


ers, in  order  that  their  children  in 
Texas  might  have  an  opportunity 
for  higher  education.  It  was  es- 
tablished and  it  has  been  conducted 
now  for  more  than  thirty  years  and 
with  signal  success.  It  had  two 
methods  of  support;  one  was  a per- 
manent fund  which  was  sought  to  be 
created,  and  the  other  was  taxation. 
It  was  hoped  that  the  permanent 
fund  would  be  sufficient,  because  the 
fathers  made  wise  provision  for  its 
maintenance  by  a permanent  fund, 
but  they  didn’t  make  quite  enough. 
The  Governor  did  not  issue  that  veto 
message  for  the  proper  reasons,  or 
based  upon  proper  causes;  he  issued 
it  because  of  his  personal  grievances 
against  members  of  the  faculty.  > 
Think  of  the  Governor  of  a great 
State,  think  of  him  because  he  falls 
out  with  some  members  of  the  faculty 
of  the  University  denying  to  the 
young  men  and  women  of  Texas  an 
opportunity  for  an  education  because 
he  can’t  have  his  way  about  some 
trifling  circumstance  like  that.  He 
had  a Board  of  Regents  composed 
of  most  excellent  men;  he  had  Mr. 
Sanger  of  Dallas,  Major  Littlefield 
of  this  place,  and  many  others  of 
equal  rank  and  station,  all  of  whom 
were  patriots  serving  at  a loss  to 
themselves  and  with  no  interest  to 
subserve  except  that  of  the  good  of 
the  people  of  Texas.  Governor  Fer- 
guson made  as  a pretext,  as  I be- 
lieve, his  statement  that  they  were 
using  scrip  out  there  for  which  they 
paid  twenty-five  dollars  and  cashing 
it  for  thirty — railroad  traveling 
scrip.  But,  Governor  Ferguson  did 
you  make  any  objection  to  the  heads 
of  your  departments  doing  the  same 
thing?  No.  Didn’t  you  and  the 
Comptroller  talk  that  matter  over  at 
the  time  and  didn’t  you  get  a letter 
from  him?  I believe  we  did.  Didn’t 
Mr.  Davis  tell  you  a short  time  ago 
that  the  practice  was  in  vogue  in 
his  department?  Yes.  Did  you  ever 
examine  into  those  things  at  all  with 
a view  of  correcting  them?  No.  But 
he  called  it  up  in  the  University.  Dr. 
Vinson  immediately  corrected  it. 
Then  there  was  some  little  expense 
account  out  there  of  one  of  the  pro- 
fessors taking  his  wife  to  Fort  Worth 
in  order  to  save  an  expense  of  five 
times  as  much  to  bring  a man  from 
Pennsylvania.  That  was  held  up  as 
an  evidence  of  moral  obliquity.  Well, 
he  said  the  trouble  about  that  was 
that  the  entry  was  not  as  it  should 


884 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


have  been,  that  they  undertook  to 
substitute  something.  All  right,  Gov- 
ernor. Didn’t  you  make  some  entries 
of  somekind?  In  1915  when  this 
chicken  salad  case  was  pending  at 
San  Antonio,  didn’t  you  make  a con- 
tract with  Mr.  Achilles,  and  didn’t 
you  procure  a warrant  to  be  issued 
by  the  Comptroller  for  $1796  for  in- 
cidentals, and  were  you  not  pre- 
vented from  getting  that  money  out 
of  the  Treasury  for  those  inciden- 
tals by  the  obstinacy  of  the  Treas- 
urer of  this  State?  Well,  yes.  Now. 
what  was  that?  I know  there  is  not 
a married  man  here  who  believes 
that  grocery  bills  are  incidentals. 
Yet  the  Governor  was  quite  willing 
to  take  $1796  out  of  the  Treasury 
of  the  State  as  incidentals,  and  yet 
fall  out  with  Professor  James  or 
Dr.  Battle  for  paying  twenty  dol- 
lars expenses  of  a good  woman  to 
Fort  Worth  to  save  an  expense  ac- 
count in  the  University.  Well, 
finally,  the  thing  that  sounded  ridi- 
culous, it  was  given  out  in  the  pa- 
pers that  Governor  Ferguson  had 
called  the  Regents  down  to  Austin 
for  the  purpose  of  discussing  with 
them  changes  in  the  faculty  of  the 
University.  What  were  the  changes 
proposed?  Dr.  Vinson  nad  to  go. 
Dr.  Vinson  was  very  much  beloved 
by  the  faculty  and  by  the  student 
body,  and  rightly  so.  Those  profes- 
sors had  to  go,  too.  Some  of  them 
Have  been  there  for  twenty-five  years 
or  more.  They  were  likewise  be- 
loved by  the  student  body,  the  young 
men  and  women  who  had  been  under 
their  tuition  in  the  school.  Why, 
when  they  heard  that  their  beloved 
President  and  teachers  were  to  be 
turned  out  ruthlessly  and  for  no 
reason  except  that  the  Governor  did 
not  like  them,  they  asked  permis- 
sion to  hold  a meeting  and  protest 
against  this.  That  angered  the  Gov- 
ernor. Why,  he  thought  they  ought 
not  to  have  that  privilege.  Senators, 
you  know  that  when  young  men  go 
to  college  they  are  no  longer  child- 
ren; they  claim  the  rights  of  free 
American  citizens  and  they  claim 
the  right  to  meet  and  develop  their 
manhood  by  developing  their  own 
lines  of  original  thought  and  original 
action.  They  met.  Finally  they  con- 
cluded they  would  march  down  to  the 
Governor’s  office,  or  pass  at  least 
through  the  Capitol.  They  came 
singing  a great  old  song  that  I wish 
to  God  the  Governor  had  heeded 


and  all  this  trouble  would  have 
been  spared,  and  that  is  that  “The 
Eyes  of  Texas  Are  Upon  You.”  They 
interfered  with  nobody.  They  had 
a band  of  music,  and  if  that  Gover- 
nor and  that  Board  of  Regents  had 
sat  down  in  their  office  and  closed 
the  windows  and  gone  on  with  their 
business,  instead  of  running  to  the 
windows  like  schoolboys  watching  a 
circus  parade,  there  would  have  been 
no  trouble  about  it  at  all.  But  the 
Governor  had  to  go  to  the  window. 
He  had  to  demand  what  was  on  the 
banners.  And  whenever  you  get  to 
talking  to  a boy  and  put  yourself 
on  a level  with  a young  fellow  he  is 
going  to  talk  back  to  you.  The 
sooner  you  learn  that,  the  more 
trouble  you  will  avoid.  Of  course, 
they  talked  back  when  he  angrily 
denounced  them  or  demanded  of 
them  what  they  were  doing  and  why 
the  banners  were  thus  floating.  As 
a matter  of  course  young  men  are 
going  to  talk  back,  and  thank  God 
for  the  spirit  that  enables  them  to 
talk  back,  because  that  is  the  kind 
of  material  from  which  free  men  are 
ultimately  constructed.  I don’t 
want  a milk-sop  boy  around  me; 
I don’t  want  him  in  college  and 
don’t  want  him  in  my  house.  I want 
him  to  be  a man  who  stands  straight 
up  and  teas  me  what  he  thinks,  if 
he  thinks  I am  infringing  on  his 
privileges  I want  him  to  feel  free  to 
let  me  know  it  and  get  right  with 
him  if  I am  wrong.  But  it  was  re- 
garded as  a terrible,  terrible  crime 
for  those  students,  young  men  and 
young  women,  too, — I have  seen 
some  of  the  young  women  since  I 
have  been  in  Austin,  some  of  these 
young  ladies  that  were  so  boisterous 
and  that  intimidated  that  old  Board 
of  Regents  so  much.  They  even 
intimidated  “Babe”  Allen.  Yes,  it 
was  that  crowd.  Why,  some  of 
those  young  ladies  don’t  look 
like  there  is  a bit  of  harm  in  them. 
Yet  that  crowd  of  marching  students 
is  made  a pretext  for  closing  up  that 
institution  and  denying  to  the  thou- 
sands of  other  youg  men  and  women 
who  had  nothing  to  do  with  that  pro- 
cession an  opportunity  for  higher  edu- 
cation. Not  only  that,  but  the  Medical 
School  at  Galveston  is  likewise  cut 
out  by  the  roots.  Why?  Why?  Be- 
cause Dr.  Fly  wanted  it  done.  Dr. 
Fly  had  a feud  with  some  other  doc- 
tor down  there,  some  of  the  members 
of  the  faculty.  Did  you  know  them, 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


885 


Governor  Ferguson?  No.  No.  But 
yet,  in  this  time  of  stress  and  war, 
when  our  President  is  calling  on  us 
to  keep  our  scientific  institutions  at 
high  pressure,  the  Medical  branch  of 
this  school,  this  University,  must  be 
stricken  (Town  in  order  to  gratify  a 
quarrel  between  some  angry  doctors. 
Now,  I like  the  doctors.  I had  to  have 
one  last  night  for  a little  while.  I 
have  some  excellent  friends  among 
them.  But  you  can  take  a small  town 
of  four  or  five  thousand  people  and 
get  two  groups  of  doctors  and  two 
banks  and  you  have  got  a perpetual 
warfare  every  day  in  and  day  out. 
And  yet,  oh,  how  ridiculous!  It  would 
be  funny  if  it  wasn’t  so  sad.  Here 
is  a man,  the  Chief  Executive  of  the 
State,  proud,  old  imperial  Texas,  sac- 
rifices the  hopes  and  aspirations  of 
the  young  men  and  young  women  of 
this  State  because  of  a quarrel  of  Dr. 
Fly  with  some  other  Doctor — and  per- 
haps the  other  doctor  was  right  in 
the  controversy.  A man  who  will  do 
that  ought  not  to  be  entrusted  with 
the  great  power  of  a Governor.  If 
Dr.  Fly  can  induce  him  to  destroy 
the  Medical  School,  without  his  know- 
ing one  single,  blessed  thing  anout  it. 
if  he  can  induce  him  to  do  that,  what 
some  other  friend  of  his  may  induce 
him  to  do  that  is  equally  as  bad  or 
worse  should  he  remain  in  the  Gover- 
nor’s office,  God  only  knows — you  can’t 
even  guess.  Now,  he  stated,  too,  that 
Dr.  Vinson  had  made  a wreck  of  the 
Presbyterian  College  and  therefore 
was  not  fit  for  it.  Senators,  I don’t 
believe  you  can  have  forgotten  what 
took  place  here  on  that  proposition. 
There  was  some  reference  made  to 
that,  and  I,  speaking  for  the  Board  of 
Managers,  told  them,  “If  you  want 
to  go  into  Dr.  Vinson’s  administration 
of  that  Presbyterian  Institute,  I am 
ready  for  you — ready  for  you.  We 
will  not  have  to  go  outside  of  Austin 
to  get  our  witnesses.  They  are  down 
here  in  the  American  National  Bank. 
Mr.  Wroe  is  the  treasurer  of  the  insti- 
tution and  knows  all  about  its  assets 
and  liabilities.  I am  ready  to  make  a 
show-down  with  you  on  that.”  Yes, 
but  what  did  he  care?  I was  even 
surprised  at  the  Governor.  The  Gov- 
ernor quotes  a second-hand  quotation. 
You  know  Mr.  Fiset  was  on  the  wit- 
ness stand  and  he  was  telling  about 
the  effect  of  the  Governor’s  giving 
Wilbur  Allen  $5,000,  that  just  before 
he  got  the  five  thousand  dollar  judg- 


ment remitted  he  said  that  Dr.  Vinson 
was  one  of  the  greatest  men  of  the 
age,  that  was  about  it — a wonderful 
educator,  a man  endowed  by  the  Al- 
mighty with  faculties  far  beyond  that 
of  the  average  man.  But  the  day  he 
got  the  judgment  remitted  he  imme- 
diately concluded  that  Dr.  Vinson  was. 
no  man  at  all,  that  he  had  wrecked 
the  only  institution  he  was  connected 
with,  and  was  just  an  ordinary,  plain 
preacher.  I didn’t  believe  that  any- 
body would  quote  Wilbur’s  testimony 
under  those  circumstances  and  I know 
that  no  Senator  here  would  give  cred- 
ence to  testimony  coming  through  Mr. 
Fiset,  because,  if  you  believe  Mr.  Fiset, 
Wilbur  changed  his  ideas  about  Dr. 
Vinson  under  circumstances  that  have 
produced  considerable  inquiry  in  this 
community.  Why,  even  the  Governor 
admitted  when  he  was  on  the  witness 
stand  that  Wilbur  was  not  loyal  to 
him  down  at  Galveston.  No,  he  could 
not  place  him,  he  could  not  depend  on< 
him.  But  the  moment  he  got  that 
judgment  remitted,  the  moment  that 
$5,000  was  practically  poured  into  his 
lap,  of  your  money  and  my  money, 
from  that  moment  on,  Wilbur  stood 
hitched.  Yes.  Don’t  quote  him  to 
prove  the  disqualification  of  Dr.  Vin- 
son, and  particularly  when  after  one 
experience  with  him  in  the  House  you 
did  not  feel  like  calling  him  back  to 
the  stand  here.  Now,  I must  pass 
that  incident  here  quickly.  I do  not 
underestimate  the  importance  of  this 
situation;  I am  serious,  never  more  so 
in  my  life,  and  when  I tell  you  I have 
no  political  ambition,  that  I once  had 
it  but  it  is  gone,  thank  God!  I have 
no  apology,  however,  to  make  for  my 
appearance  here.  I am  not  even  a 
criminal  lawyer;  I do  no  criminal 
practice  either  for  the  prosecution  or 
the  defense.  I was  asked  to  come 
here  in  the  beginning  of  this  business 
by  a committee  of  the  Legislature 
while  at  my  home  late  after  dinner — 
telephoned  to  by  Judge  Barry  Miller, 
representing  the  committee  in  March, 
I accepted  their  terms  and  came,  and 
because  of  my  work  then  and  there 
and  my  familiarity  with  the  situation 
the  same  gentlemen  insisted  on  my 
coming  back  to  help  them  in  the 
other  investigation  in  the  House.  I 
didn’t  feel  at  liberty  to  refuse,  and 
then  when  the  articles  of  impeach- 
ment were  preferred,  as  these  gentle- 
men know  who  sit  here  before  me, 
the  Board  of  Managers,  I insisted  that 


886 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


they  could  take  care  of  the  situation 
quite  as  well  as  I,  and  I did  not  want 
to  come  back;  but  they  insisted  that 
I ought  to  come,  and  I am  here.  I 
have  some  ambition  in  this  connection. 
You  know  we  are  engaged  in  a world 
war;  our  boys  are  going  cut  in  their 
uniforms  and  carrying  the  flag,  carry- 
ing-civilization and  the  ideals  of  this 
country  to  faroff  lands.  I have  two 
of  my  own  there;  God  grant  that  they 
all  return,  but  when  they  do  return  I 
trust  that  we  will  have  re-established 
the  ideals  of  the  fathers,  that  a public 
office  is  a public  trust,  and  that  it 
cannot  and  must  not  be  converted 
into  a private  snap.  That  to  that  prop- 
osition I am  committed,  and  while 
in  the  private  ranks  as  a private  citi- 
zen I will  never  shirk  the  responsi- 
bility in  attacking  those  who  are  high 
In  power,  whenever  they  transcend 
what  I believe  to  be  the  law  of  the 
land. 

Now,  I am  coming  to  one  other 
question,  and  then  I am  going  to 
close;  I am  going  to  leave  the  respon- 
sibility then  with  the  Senators.  One 
of  the  most  reprehensible  and  to  me 
most  inexcusable  things  in  this  whole 
business  is  the  borrowing  of  that 
$156,500.  Now,  I am  speaking  plain- 
ly because  there  is  no  other  way  to 
speak.  We  had  ascertained  that  it 
was  true — and  I think  the  Governor 
knew  it — that  he  had  deposited  large 
amounts  of  currency  in  various 
banks;  it  was  such  an  unusual  cir- 
cumstance that  it  was  impossible  to 
keep  it  concealed.  Therefore,  in  the 
House  of  Representatives  he  admit- 
ted, voluntarily  stated,  that  he  had 
been  on  the  verge  of  bankruptcy,  and 
some  of  his  friends  had  asked — at 
least  come  to  his  relief  and  had 
loaned  him  $156,500  in  cash,  but 
with  the  distinct  understanding  that 
their  names  should  never  be  dis- 
closed. The  House  decided  that  he 
ought  to  disclose  those  names,  still 
he  declined  to  do  it.  I did  not  ask 
them  to  have  him  committed  for  con- 
tempt because  I knew  what  the  re- 
sult would  be,  a habeas  corpus  case 
would  be  the  result  and  we  would  be 
rushed  off  into  a blind  alley  in  a 
court  procedure,  instead  of  prosecut- 
ing the  impeachment  of  the  Govern- 
or. He  came  over  here  and  he  made 
the  same  statement.  This  Senate  de- 
cided by  an  overwhelming  majority 
that  he  ought  to  disclose  the  sources 
of  that  money — where  he  got  it,  from 


whom  he  got  it  and  how  he  happened 
to  get  it.  He  declines  to  do  it,  and 
in  a labored  effort  of  two  hours  this 
morning  he  still  declines  to  give  that 
information.  Now,  I do  not  wish  to 
be  unjust,  but  I can  not  understand — 
I can  not  even  get  a glimpse  of  a 
thought  or  an  idea  that  would  make 
it  possible  for  any  friend  of  any  man 
to  lend  him  money,  to  risk  his  cash 
on  him,  and  at  the  same  time  be 
ashamed  or  afraid  to  have  it  known 
who  he  is.  You  know,  you  have  got 
to  judge  normal  men  by  yourself, 
and  I ask  any  Senator  here  if  he  had 
a friend  in  trouble — in  financial 
trouble  and  he  wanted  to  help  him, 
he  was  willing  to  help  him  and  will- 
ing to  risk  his  cash  on  him — wouldn’t 
you  go — you  would  go  to  him  and 
give  him  your  cash,  wouldn’t  you, 
and  at  the  same  time  tell  him  “I 
don’t  mind  it  being  known  that  I 
am  lending  you  the  money”;  and 
then  last  of  all  when  I see — suppose, 
that  I am  the  man  that  you  are  lend- 
ing the  money,  and  I am  your  friend 
and  you  are  mine,  when  you  see  me 
embarrassed,  when  you  see  me  sus- 
pected of  having  gotten  that  money 
from  wrongful  sources  or  under  con- 
ditions that  would  do  me  discredit, 
is  it  possible  for  you  or  any  other 
normal  man  to  say  “Don’t  disclose 
the  fact  that  I let  you  have  it;  tar- 
nish your  name,  suffer  as  much  as 
you  please,  let  your  reputation  for 
bonest  and  integrity  be  dragged  down 
but  you  must  not  disclose  that  I am 
your  friend,  that  I am  the  man  that 
let  you  have  the  money.”  Senators, 
t can  not  understand  that,  I can  not 
even  get  inside  of  a circle  that  will 
enable  me  to  see  even  a glimpse  of  a 
reason  why  any  man  would  do  that. 
Now,  the  American  people  are  a loyal 
people,  and  the  Governor  knows  he 
has  some  loyal  friends,  they  have 
stood  by  him  under  all  sorts  of  cir- 
cumstances, and  I can’t,  I can’t  un- 
derstand why  a man  filling  the  high/ 
office  of  Governor,  clothed  with  the 
powers  that  the  Constitution  and  law 
clothe  him  with,  with  a proud  peo- 
ple who  want  their  Governor  to  be 
like  Caecar’s  wife,  not  only  honest, 
but  above  suspicion.  I can  not  un- 
derstand why  he  humiliates  those 
people  by  asking  them  to  let  him 
borrow  money  under  those  circum- 
stances, and  yet  not  tell  why  or  from 
whom  he  got  it.  Now,  we  know  there 
are  many  sources  that  a Governor 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


887 


can  not  afford  to  get  money  from.  We 
know  that  we  hope  that  that  is  not 
It.  We  have  given  the  Governor 
every  opportunity  to  exonerate  him- 
self, and  I think  that  he  ought  not 
to  complain  if  an  adverse  decision 
should  be  rendered  against  him  on 
that  point,  because,  as  I say,  I can 
not  see,  I can  not  understand,  and 
I do  not  believe  any  of  you  can  under- 
stand any  reason  why  any  friend  of 
his  should  suffer  him  to  be  put  in 
that  humilitating  attitude  now.  If 
there  were  no  other  reason,  when  a 
public  official  is  found  in  the  pos- 
session of  $156,500  in  currency, 
brought  to  him  and  delivered  to 
him,  $20,000  of  it  kept  in  a wooden 
desk  in  his  office  for  thirty  or  sixty 
days,  with  banks  all  around  him  here, 
not  confiding  even  to  his  private  secre- 
tary that  he  has  it — these  circum- 
stances are  of  such  a character,  and 
then  when  he  is  called  upon  to  ex- 
plain he  declines,  “for  the  reasons 
stated,”  if  there  were  nothing  else, 
that  would  justify  impeachment. 

Now,  Senators,  I have  finished  my 
task.  I have  not  felt  like  talking 
to  you  this  afternoon,  but  I have 
tried  to  do  my  duty  as  I under- 
stand it.  I owe  Governor  Ferguson 
no  ill-will,  none  whatever.  I do  not 
pretend  to  have  agreed  with  him  on 
political  questions;  I have  not.  But 
there  are  so  many  men  with  whom 
I have  not  agreed,  and  yet  for  whom 
I have  a warm  affection  even;  I am 
always  glad  of  the  fact  and  proud 
to  know  that  some  of  my  personal 
friends  have  not  even  been  mem- 
bers of  my  own  political  party.  I 
think  that  man  who  limits  his 
friendship  to  his  own  church,  his 
own  creed,  or  his  own  policies,  is 
a very  narrow  man  indeed.  But  I 
feel  that  you  owe  more  to  Texas 
than  you  do  to  any  one  man.  I know 
that  there  is  no  man  here — no  Sena- 
tor here  who  will  vote  for  Governor 
Ferguson  because  he  does  not  like 
him;  that  would  be  mean,  spiteful 
and  low.  I also  believe  that  there 
is  no  Senator  here  who  will  refuse 
to  vote  against  Governor  Ferguson 
because  he  does  like  him,  because  a 
man  who  votes  upon  a public  ques- 
tion like  this  to  shield  a friend,  has 
not  learned  the  first  principles  of 
American  citizenship — not  one.  It  is 
his  duty  to  vindicate  the  law.  And, 
new.  Senators,  unless  you  do,  what 
you  may  expect  in  the  future.  If 


the  Governor  can  violate  the  Con- 
stitution and  furnish  his  grocery 
supplies,  contrary  to  the  statute, 
what  may  you  expect  of  the  average 
citizen.  Now,  I leave  it  to  you. 
Senators,  here — and  you  are  busi- 
ness men — if  you  had  furnished  a 
ranch,  hired  a man  for  $4,000.00  a 
year,  and  no  more,  and  had  given 
him  the  use  of  the  ranch  property 
to  live  in,  and  then  he  would  use 
your  money  that  you  had  given  him 
for  other  purposes  to  handle  your 
estate,  to  buy  groceries,  you  might 
not  send  him  to  the  penitentiary, 
but  you  would  do  with  him  what  we 
are  trying  to  do  with  Governor  Fer- 
guson now — you  would  leave  him 
out  of  that  job;  yes,  he  would  not 
be  that  manager  any  more. 

And  now,  Senators,  let  me  ask 
you  one  more  thing.  If,  in  the 
face  of  a plain  statute  which  says 
that  it  is  a felony  for  any  officer  to 
deposit  the  public  funds  in  any 
place  except  the  State  Treasury,  it 
being  open, — if  you  should  over- 
look that  now  and  say  that  they 
may  deposit  it  in  Kamchatka  or  any- 
where else  they  please,  just  so  they 
get  them  to  the  Treasury  within 
ninety  days,  the  statute  notwith- 
standing, what  may  you  expect  of 
the  next  set  of  officers  you  get  in 
here?  And  then  that  is  not  all,  that 
is  not  all.  Proud  old  imperial  Tex- 
as, taking  her  place  in  the  sister- 
hood of  states,  shall  she  have  it  go 
forth  to  the  North,  to  the  East,  to 
the  West,  to  the  South,  that  Texas 
does  not  exact  of  her  officials  obe- 
dience to  the  law.  Texas  exacts 
that  only  of  the  unimportant  fel- 
low down  home;  that  the  average 
citizen  may  violate  a statute  and 
you  send  him  to  the  penitentiary, 
and  the  Governor  coolly  considers 
whether  he  will  pardon  him.  The 
Governor  will  violate  that  statute 
and  you  say  to  him,  “Well  done, 
thou  faithful  servant;  thou  hast 
been  faithful  in  violating  a few 
statues,  may  you  yet  violate  many 
more.”  That  is  the  feeling. 

Texas  is  on  trial  now,  Senators. 
Being  a part  of  Texas  I have  that 
interest  in  it.  It  is  to  be  determ- 
ined whether  Texas  will  stand  up 
for  vindication  of  the  law  and 
whether  she  will  exact  from  her 
officers  obedience  to  that  law, 
or  whether  she  will  say:  “You  are 
licensed  libertines,  do  whatever  you 
please;  the  law  was  made  for  the 


888 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


underman,  it  was  not  made  for 
you.” 

I thank  you,  Senators.  This  is 
my  last  appearance  before  you.  I 
thank  you  for  the  courtesies  which 
you  have  extended  all  of  us  during 
this  strenuous  hard  work  of  the 
last  three  weeks.  If  any  of  us  have 
violated  any  of  the  rules  under  the 
stress  of  the  moment,  I sincerely 
apologize  for  it.  We  have  tried  to 
conduct  the  case  fairly,  we  have 
tried  to  reach  the  correct  con- 
clusion, and  I leave  it  in  your  handg, 
now,  with  the  most  supreme  confi- 
dence that  you  will  do  what  you  be- 
lieve to  be  right. 

The  Chair:  What  is  the  pleasure 
of  the  Court? 

Senator  Hopkins:  Mr.  President. 

Senator  Bee:  Let  us  have  order, 
Mr.  President. 

The  Chair:  Order.  The  Senator 
from  Denton. 

Senator  Hopkins:  I move  that  we 
at  this  time  proceed  to  consider  the 
articles  of  impeachment,  and  vote  on 
them  one  by  one,  according  to  the 
rules  of  this  Court,  in  open  session. 

Mr.  Bee:  Mr.  President. 

The  Chair:  The  gentleman  from 
Bexar. 

Senator  Bee:  In  furtherance  of 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from 
Denton,  I believe  that  it  would  be 
proper  under  the  rules  as  contem- 
plated— it  is  a small  matter — that 
the  Senators,  if  possible,  should  oc- 
cupy their  seats  when  they  cast  their 
votes.  I would  like,  as  a Senator, 
to  retain  my  seat  and  vote  from  my 
seat,  if  it  would  not  cause  too  much 
confusion. 

The  Chair:  If  you  are  ready  to 
begin  voting  on  the  articles  of  im- 
peachment, then  we  will  ask  those 
who  are  visitors  and  within  the 
range  of  the  seats  to  please  retire 
outside  of  the  last  row  of  seats  on 
either  side,  so  that  the  Senators  may 
take  their  own  seats  at  their  own 
desks.  The  Senator  from  Denton 
moves  that  we  now  proceed,  under 
Article  21,  to  vote  on  the  articles  of 
impeachment  separately.  Are  you 
ready  for  the  question  on  that  mo- 
tion— in  open  session?  Those  in 
favor  of  the  motion  will  signify  by 
saying  “Aye”;  those  oppesed,  “No.” 
The  ayes  have  it,  and  we  will  so 
proceed. 

Senator  Lattimore:  Mr.  President. 

The  Chair:  The  Senator  from 
Tarrant. 


Senator  Lattimore:  Is  it  the  pur- 
pose of  the  Chair  to  have  each  article 
read  and  then  vote  on  it? 

The  Chair:  It  is  the  purpose  of 
the  Chair,  if  not  otherwise  instruct- 
ed by  the  Court,  to  have  Article  1 
read  and  then  propound  this  ques- 
tion to  the  members  of  the  Court, 
“Senators,  is  this  article  sustained? 
The  Secretary  will  call  the  roll,  and 
those  who  favor  sustaining  the  ar- 
ticle will  answer  ‘Aye’;  those  op- 
posed, ‘No.’  ” 

Senator  Hudspeth:  Mr.  President, 

I rise  on  a point  of  information. 

The  Chair:  The  Senator  from  El 
Paso. 

Senator  Hudspeth:  The  Chair 
stated  to  me  that  in  case  any  one 
article  is  sustained  by  a two-thirds 
vote  what  the  judgment  of  the  Court 
will  be  in  that  instance,  and  how  far 
it  will  carry. 

The  Chair:  The  judgment  would 
be  a judgment  of  conviction,  under 
Rule  21.  Under  that  rule  we  will 
proceed  first,  though,  to  have  read 
and  vote  on  all  the  articles  of  im- 
peachment; we  will  vote  on  each 
and  all  of  the  articles  of  impeach- 
ment. 

Senator  Hudspeth:  Will  the  Chair 
state  whether  that  judgment  would 
carry  with  it  a removel  from  office 
and  a disqualification  for  holding 
office  in  this  State? 

The  Chair:  No,  sir,  the  Chair 
cannot  state  that;  that  will  be  for 
the  members  of  the  Court  to  deter- 
mine that. 

Senator  Hudspeth:  After  each  and 
every  article  has  been  voted  on? 

The  Chair:  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Bee:  Will  the  Senator 
from  El  Paso  yield  to  the  Senator 
from  Bexar? 

Senator  Hudspeth:  Yes,  sir;  I 
yield. 

Senator  Bee:  It  occurs  to  me  that 
there  is  a good  deal  of  force  in  the 
suggestion  made  by  the  Senator  from 
Tarrant  this  morning,  that  after  the 
vote  had  been  taken  and  the  judg- 
ment rendered,  a committee  be  ap- 
pointed to  confer  with  the  Senator 
from  Tarrant  to  formulate  the  form 
of  judgment  to  be  rendered  in  the 
Senate.  That  would  cover  the  ques- 
tion, I think,  asked  by  the  Senator 
from  El  Paso. 

Senator  Hudspeth:  I would  like 
to  ask  the  Senator  from  Bexar  if 
that  judgment,  in  his  judgment,  will 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


889 


be  adopted  by  a majority  or  by  a 
two-thirds  vote? 

Senator  Bee:  I will  observe  to 
the  Senator  from  El  Paso  that  I have 
not  considered  the  question  before, 
but  I imagine  that  it  will  be  by  a 
two-thirds  vote,  though  I am  not 
prepared  to  pass  on  that  question  at 
this  time,  and  I think  that  would  be 
one  of  the  matters  to  be  considered 
in  arriving  at  the  judgment,  though 
I am  not  prepared  to  answer  that 
question,  because  I have  not  consid- 
ered it. 

The  Chair:  Has  the  Senator  from 
McLennan  returned  to  the  Chamber? 

I see  the  Senator  from  McLennan 
has  returned. 

Senator  Hudspeth:  I will  state 
to  the  Chair  that  I think  it  is  very 
essential  to  know  these  matters. 

The  Chair:  Well,  the  Chair  would 
not  have  the  authority  to  decide 
these  matters,  nor  is  the  Chair  sat- 
isfied himself  as  to  that  question. 
The  Chair  is  of  the  opinion — 

Senator  Hudspeth:  I should  think 
that  the  vote  of  the  Senators  upon^ 
these  articles  would  determine  the 
magnitude  of  the  verdict  reached. 

The  Chair:  The  Chair  is  of  the 
opinion  that  that  matter  under  the 
rule  would  be  determined  by  the 
Court — the  Senate  sitting  as  a Court, 
after  the  articles  have  all  been  voted 
on. 

Senator  Hudspeth:  Yes,  sir.  By 
what  majority? 

The  Chair:  Well,  I can’t  say. 

Senator  Hudspeth:  There  is  no 
rule  covering  that? 

Senator  Hopkins:  Mr.  President. 

The  Chair:  The  Senator  from 
Denton. 

Senator  Hopkins:  I would  like  to 
call  Rule  21  to  the  attention  of  the 
Court.  I think  that  settles  the  ques- 
tion. We  will  first  vote  on  the  ar- 
ticles, and  then  frame  the  judgment. 

The  Chair:  Yes,  sir.  The  Secre- 
tary will  read  Article  1. 

Senator  Bailey:  Mr.  President. 

The  Chair:  Senator  Bailey. 

Senator  Bailey:  Mr.  President, 
before  this  article  is  read,  and  be- 
fore we  vote,  I ask  that  the  roll  of 
the  Senate  be  called  so  that  if  any 
of  the  Senators  are  absent,  opportun- 
ity may  be  given  to  get  them  here. 

The  Chair:  AU  right.  (To  the 
Secretary) : Call  the  roll. 

Senator  Bailey:  There  were  two. 
or  three  absent. 


Senator  Hudspeth:  I don’t  under- 
stand, I can’t  hear  the  Senator  from 
DeWitt. 

Senator  Bailey:  I asked  that  the 
roll  of  the  Senate  be  called. 

Senator  Hudspeth:  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Bailey:  So  that  if  any  of 
the  Senators  are  absent  they  may  be 
sent  for.  They  all  desire  to  vote. 

The  Chair:  The  Secretary  will 
call  the  roll. 

(Thereupon,  the  Secretary  of  the 
Senate  called  the  roll,  as  follows,  to 
wit: ) 


Alderdice. 

Bailey. 

Bee. 

Buchanan  of  Bell. 
Buchanan  of  Scurry. 
Caldwell. 

Clark. 

Collins. 

Dayton. 

Dean. 

Decherd. 

Floyd. 

Gibson. 

Hall. 

Harley. 

Henderson. 


Hopkins. 

Hudspeth. 

Johnson  of  Hall. 
Johnston  of  Harris. 
Lattimore. 
McCollum. 
McNealus. 

Page. 

Parr. 

Robbins. 

Smith. 

Strickland. 

Suiter. 

Westbrook. 

Woodward. 


Senator  Hudspeth:  The  Senator 
from  Tarrant  desires  to  be  marked 
“present”;  he  has  gone  to  answer  a 
long  distance  telephone  call. 

The  Secretary:  The  Senator  from 
Fayette  is  absent. 

The  Chair:  All  are  here  except 
Senator  Clark.  I wish  the  Assistant 
Sergeant-at-Arms  and  the  pages 
would  try  to  locate  Senator  Clark, 
and  tell  him  we  are  ready  to  begin 
voting. 

The  Secretary:  Do  you  want  to 
wait  for  him? 

The  Chair:  Yes,  wait  just  a min- 
ute and  see  if  we  can  locate  him. 

Senator  Caldwell:  Mr.  President. 

The  Chair:  Senator  Caldwell. 

Senator  Caldwell:  I would  like  to 
ask  if  it  would  not  be  proper  for  the 
Court  to  pass  upon  the  demurrers  pre- 
sented by  the  Respondent. 

The  Chair:  Counsel  for  the  Respon- 
dent said  that  they  would  ask  for  no 
vote  on  the  demurrers,  that  was  the 
statement  of  Mr.  Hanger  yesterday, 
that  is  the  way  the  Chair  understood 
him. 

Senator  Caldwell:  They  waive  the 
demurrers  then 

The  Chair:  That  was  his  statement 


890 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


that  they  asked  for  no  vote  on  fhera. 
Has  anyone  seen  the  Senator  from  Fa- 
yette for  the  last  half  hour? 

Senator  Hopkins:  Mr.  President,  he 
has  been  absent  all  the  afternoon. 

Senator  Bailey:  He  is  in  the  build- 
ing somewhere. 

Senator  Bee:  Mr.  President,  I sug- 
gest that  the  Senator  from  Fayette 
may  have  anticipated  a longer  argu- 
ment, in  view  of  the  time  alloted  Gen- 
eral Crane.  I think  his  hat  is  there, 
he  must  be  somewhere  about  the  build- 
ing. 

The  Chair:  The  Senate  is  full. 
The  Secretary  will  read  the  first  article 
of  impeachment. 

Judge  Martin:  Mr.  President. 

The  Chair:  Judge  Martin. 

Judge  Martin:  I think  the  Chair 
probably  misunderstood  about  Counsel 
for  Respondent  waiving  the  demurrers. 
What  we  stated  was  that  we  were  will- 
ing to  have  them  all  considered  to- 
gether, and  voted  on  together,  so  far 
as  that  is  concerned;  but  we  do  not 
want  to  be  placed  in  the  attitude  of 
waiving  anything. 

The  Chair:  Well,  Mr.  Hanger 

stated  yesterday  he  asked  for  no  sep- 
arate vote  on  the  demurrers. 

Judge  Martin:  No,  we  are  asking 
no  separate  vote,  but  we  do  not  want 
to  be  placed  in  the  attitude  of  having 
waived  anything — that  is,  if  we  have 
any  rights  that  are  presented  in  the 
demurrers.  We  do  not  waive  them. 

Senator  Bee:  Mr.  President,  does 
Judge  Martin  yield? 

The  Chair:  Does  Judge  Martin 
yield  to  the  Senator  from  Bexar? 

Judge  Martin:  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Bee:  It  occurs  to  me  that 
the  understanding  would  be  that  we 
vote,  and  if  any  Senator  believes  that 
a demurrer  would  lie  to  the  charge, 
he  would  be  justified  in  voting  against 
the  sustaining  of  that  charge,  because 
a demurrer  should  lie  against  it. 

Judge  Martin:  Yes,  sir,  that  was — 

Senator  Bee:  I don’t  understand, 
Mr.  President,  that  counsel  intended 
to  waive. 

Judge  Martin:  No,  sir. 

The  Chair:  Just  waive  the  sepa- 
rate vote.  Of  course,  if  a Senator  be- 
lieves that  it  is  not  impeachable  mat- 
ter, the  Senator  in  that  case  will  vote 
“No.” 

Judge  Martin:  As  stated  by  the 
Senator  from  Bexar,  our  position  was 
that  we  did  not  want  to  place  upon 
the  Senators  the  responsibility  of  a 


separate  vote,  but  that  they  might 
consider  the  demurrers  and  the 
charges  together,  and  that  in  the 
event,  in  their  opinion,  the  demurrer 
should  be  sustained,  that  each  Sena- 
tor could  so  act  on  it  in  his  vote,  on 
the  charge,  that  is  the  point. 

The  Chair:  Yes,  sir,  the  Chair  un* 
derstands  it  that  way.  Senator  Clarke 
I will  state  for  your  information,  that 
the  Senate,  by  a unanimous  vote,  de- 
cided that  we  begin  voting  on  these 
charges  separately,  as  provided  by 
Rule  21.  The  Secretary  will  read  Ar- 
ticle 1. 

Senator  Hudspeth:  Mr.  President, 
as  the  roll  is  called,  I move  that  each 
Senator  rise  in  his  seat  in  casting  his 
vote. 

The  Chair:  Let  me  finish  the 
statement  I was  making  to  Senator 
Clark. 

Senator  Woodward:  I agree  with 
the  Senator  from  El  Paso,  I think 
that  would  be  a wise  idea. 

Senator  Strickland:  Mr.  President, 
all  the  Senators  are  not  as  handsome 
as  the  Senator  from  El  Paso,  and  I 
don’t  think  that  his  motion  is  quite 
fair. 

The  Chair:  Well,  we  will  put  the 
motion  anyway.  The  Chair  will  state 
for  the  information  of  Senator  Clark 
that  during  his  abense  from  the 
Chamber — 

Senator  Woodward:  Mr.  Presi- 

dent. 

The  Chair:  The  Chair  would  like 
to  have  an  opportunity  of  finishing 
this  statement  to  Senator  Clark,  ilf 
the  Senator  from  Erath  yields? 

Senator  Woodward:  Yes,  sir,  par- 
don me. 

The  Chair  (Resuming  his  state- 
ment to  Senator  Clark) : By  a unani- 
mous vote  the  Senate  decided  that  in 
voting  on  the  articles  of  impeach- 
ment we  would  vote  on  each  article 
separately,  and  that  we  will  follow 
this  procedure:  The  Secretary  will 
read  the  articles  in  their  order,  and 
after  each  article  is  read  the  Chair 
will  propound  to  the  Senators  this 
question:  “Is  this  article  of  impeach- 
ment sustained?”  Those  who  so  find 
— and  the  Secretary  will  call  the  roll, 
and  those  who  so  find  will  answer 
“Aye,”  and  those  who  do  not  so  find, 
will  answer  “No.”  Does  the  Senator 
from  El  Paso  want  his  motion  put? 

Senator  Hudspeth:  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chair:  The  Senator  from  El 
Paso  moves  that  as  each  Senator's 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


891 


name  is  called  he  rise  at  his  place 
and  answer  “aye”  or  “no.”  as  the 
case  may  be.  Those  in  favor  of  the 
motion  signify  by  saying  “aye,” 
those  opposed,  “no.”  The  ayes  have 
it. 

Senator  Bee:  Mr.  President. 

The  Chair:  Senator  Bee. 

Senator  Bee:  The  Senator  from 
Erath  asks  recognition  from  the 
Chair. 

Senator  Woodward:  Mr.  Presi- 

dent, I want  to  make  a little  inquiry, 
and  that  is  this,  that  under  the  rule 
is  it  necessary  that  all  the  charges 
be  read? 

The  Chair:  No,  sir,  one  charge 
will  be  read  and  we  will  vote  on  that. 

Senator  Woodward:  Yes,  sir,  I 
want  to  know  whether  it  is  necessary 
for  the  charges  to  be  read. 

The  Chair:  Yes,  sir,  I think  so. 

Senator  Woodward:  Can’t  we  by 
motion  eliminate  that;  that  would 
take  a long  time. 

The  Chair:  That  won’t  take  very 
long.  The  Chair  himself  would  likej 
to  have  the  charges  read  before  vot- 
ing on  them,  because  we  can’t  re- 
member them. 

Senator  Hudspeth:  Mr.  President. 

The  Chair:  Senator  Hudspeth. 

Senator  Hudspeth:  I think  it 
would  be  well  at  this  time  for  the 
Chair  to  again  recall  to  this  audience 
that  this  is  a solemn  occasion,  and 
there  will  be  no  demonstration  what- 
ever on  the  results  of  the  voting.  If 
people  come  here  as  idle  curiosity 
seekers,  they  have  got  no  business 
here  or  in  the  galleries. 

The  Chair:  The  Chair  agrees 
most  hearitly  in  the  statement  of  the 
Senator  from  El  Paso.  We  can’t  for 
one  moment  tolerate  any  kind  of 
demonstration  for  or  against  any 
man.  the  result  of  the  vote  as  a 
whole,  or  against  any  man’s  vote,  and 
we  do  not  believe,  having  been  thus 
admonished  that  any  in  the  gallery 
or  in  the  Chambers  will  offend.  The 
Secretary  will  read  Article  1. 

(The  Secretary  thereupon  read 
Article  1,  as  follows,  to  wit:) 

“That  there  was  paid  from  the 
funds  of  the  Canyon  City  Normal 
School  deposited  with  the  Temple 
State  Bank  on  August  23,  1915,  a 
note  of  $5000  together  with  $600  in- 
terest due  by  James  E.  Ferguson  to 
the  First  National  Bank  of  Temple, 
Texas.  That  said  amount  has  never 
been  refunded  to  the  State  of  Texas. 


That  in  part  payment  of  the  total  due, 
for  the  building  of  the  Canyon  City 
Normal  College  he  used  other  funds, 
a portion  of  which  belonged  to  the 
State,  and  the  balance  being  in  his 
hands  as  Governor,  and  deposited  to 
his  credit  as  Governor  in  the  Ameri- 
can National  Bank  of  Austin,  which 
acts  constitute  a violation  of  law.” 

The  Chair:  Senators,  what  say 
you  to  this  article  of  impeachment? 
Is  it  sustained  or  not  sustained? 
Those  who  believe  that  it  is  sustained 
will  answer  “aye”  as  their  names  are 
called;  those  who  do  not  so  believe 
will  answer  “no.”  The  Secretary 
will  call  the  roll. 

(The  Secretary  thereupon  called 
the  roll,  the  vote  being  as  follows,  to 
wit: ) 

Yeas — 27. 


Alderdice. 

Bailey. 

Bee. 

Buchanan  of  Bell. 
Buchanan  of  Scurry 
Caldwell. 

Collins. 

Dayton. 

Dean. 

Decherd. 

Floyd. 

Gibson. 

Harley. 

Henderson. 


Hopkins. 

Hudspeth. 

Johnson  of  Hall. 
Johnston  of  Harris. 
.Lattimore. 
McCollum. 
McNealus. 

"Page. 

Robbins. 

Smith. 

Strickland. 

Suiter. 

Westbrook. 


Nays — 4. 


Clark. 

Hall. 


Parr. 

Woodward. 


The  Secretary:  Twenty-seven  “ayes” 
and  four  “noes,”  Mr.  President. 

The  Chair:  There  being  twenty- 
seven  “ayes”  and  four  “noes,”  the 
article  is  sustained. 

Senator  Bee:  Let’s  have  order, 
Mr.  President. 

The  Chair:  Let’s  have  order,  per- 
fect order. 

(The  following  reasons,  in  writing, 
were  sent  up  by  members  of  the 
Court.) 


Reasons  for  Vote. 

-s  The  supreme  moment  has  come. 
The  clock  has  struck  the  hour  when 
the  issues  between  the  Common- 
wealth of  Texas  and  its  Chief  Execu- 
tive must  be  decided.  My  relations 
with  the  Chief  Executive  have  been 
politically  and  personally  friendly- 


892 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


Every  wish  of  my  heart  has  been  to 
vote  against  sustaining  the  articles 
or  any  of  them,  but  my  duty  under 
my  oath  and  to  my  people  demands 
that  I should  vote  to  sustain  charge 
Number  One.  I cannot  believe  that 
the  Governor  could  remain  ignorant 
of  a transaction  of  the  character 
charged  in  this  article  especially 
when  the  subsequent  use  of  the  funds 
in  the  Adjutant  General’s  Depart- 
ment and  the  Highway  Funds  made 
up,  together  with  his  check  for 
$1800,  the  exact  amount  due  to  pay 
the  note  of  $5  600  which  was  paid  out 
of  the  Canyon  City  funds — a trust 
fund. 

The  Senate  has  confronted  a very 
serious  and  momentous  situation, 
“but  believing  that  the  evidence  sus- 
tained the  charge  I vote  “aye.” 

BEE. 

I vote  “no,”  on  Article  1 of  the 
impeachment  charges  against  Gov- 
ernor James  E.  Ferguson,  for  the 
reason  that  the  undisputed  proof  is 
that  Governor  Ferguson  had  no 
knowledge  whatever  of  the  use  of 
the  $5600  of  the  Canyon  City  Normal 
Fund  in  the  payment  of  an  indebted- 
ness of  his;  that  it  unquestionably 
and  without  any  contradiction  oc- 
curred by  reason  of  a mistake  on  the 
part  of  the  officers  of  the  bank,  with 
which  Governor  Ferguson  was  whol- 
ly unacquainted.  And  that  in  addi- 
tion to  all  this,  he  has  paid  to  the 
State  of  Texas  every  cent  of  money 
ever  entrusted  to  him  as  Governor 
in  every  and  any  way,  whatsoever, 
and  does  not  owe  the  State  of  Texas 
one  cent  or  one  penny,  having  scrup- 
ulously accounted  for  all  moneys  en- 
trusted to  him. 

CLARK. 

“I  would  gladly  resign  my  seat  as 
a Senator,  if  that  would  clear  the 
Governor.  He  is  my  friend  and  I 
expect  to  continue  to  be  his  friend. 
I would  do  anything,  in  my  power, 
for  him  on  account  of  my  friendship 
for  him  and  his  brother,  A.  M.  Fer- 
guson, who  was  my  schoolmate  at 
A.  and  M.  College.  But  I owe  a 
higher  duty  to  the  State  than  that  of 
friendship  or  of  sympathy  to  anyone. 
To  shirk  my  duty,  under  the  law  and 
evidence,  as  my  conscience  dictates, 
would  be  worse  than  cowardly. 

“Believing  beyond  doubt  that  Ar- 
ticle 1 has  been  proven,  as  alleged, 


in  the  articles  of  impeachment,  I 
vote  ‘aye.’  ” 

DAYTON. 

The  Chair:  Read  Article  2,  Mr. 
Secretary. 

(The  Secretary  thereupon  read 
Article  2,  as  follows,  to  wit:) 

“That  James  E.  Ferguson  received 
from  former  Governor  O.  B.  Colquitt 
more  than  $101,000,  the  proceeds 
from  insurance  policies  on  the  Can- 
yon City  Normal  School.  That  at 
the  time  said  moneys  were  turned 
over  to  him  they  were  on  deposit  in 
banks  bearing  interest  at  from  four 
/and  one-half  to  five  per  cent  and 
which  remained  there  for  approxi- 
mately one  year,  and  that  he  depos- 
ited the  other  amounts  in  banks  in 
which  he  was  interested  as  a stock- 
holder, and  in  the  American  National 
Bank,  to  which  he  shortly  afterwards 
became  indebted.  That  he  received 
direct  and  personal  profit  as  a stock- 
holder of  the  Temple  State  Bank 
from  the  deposit  placed  with  it;  thus 
using  and  misapplying  State  funds 
for  his  individual  benefit  and  profit.” 

The  Chair:  Before  putting  the 
question  on  this  article,  someone  sent 
up  his  reasons  without  signing  them. 
Was  that  the  Senator  from  Fayette?^ 

Senator  Clark:  No,  sir,  I will 
send  up  my  reasons  later,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent. 

The  Chair:  Someone,  Senator  Day- 
ton? 

Senator  Dayton:  Mr.  President, 
that  was  mine. 

Senator  Clark:  Mr.  President,  I 
want  to  state  that  I am  going  to  vote 
“no”  on  everything,  and  I want  to 
send  up  my  reasons  for  every  vote, 
I will  state  that;  and  I will  send  it 
up  to  the  Journal  Clerk. 

The  Chair:  All  right.  Senators, 
the  question  is,  shall  this  article  be 
sustained  or  not  sustained?  Those 
who  believe  that  it  is  sustained  will 
answer  “aye”  as  their  names  are; 
called;  those  who  do  not  so  believe 
will  answer  “no.”  The  Secretary, 
will  call  the  roll. 

(The  Secretary  thereupon  called 
the  roll,  the  vote  being  as  follows,  to 
wit: ) 

Yeas — 26. 

Alderdice.  Buchanan  of  Rell. 

Bailey.  Buchanan  of  Scurry. 

Bee.  Caldwell. 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


893 


Collins. 

Dayton. 

Dean. 

Declierd. 

Floyd. 

Gibson. 

Harley. 

Henderson. 

Hopkins. 

Johnson  of  Hall. 


Johnston  of  Harris. 
Lattimore. 
McCollum. 
McNealus. 

Page. 

Robbins. 

Smith. 

Strickland. 

Suiter. 

Westbrook. 


Nays — 5. 

Clark.  Hudspeth. 

Hall.  Woodward. 

Parr. 

The  Secretary  (to  the  .Chair): 
Twenty-six  ayes  and  five  noes. 

The  Chair:  There  being  twenty- 
six  ayes  and  five  noes,  Article  2 is 
sustained. 


that  exact  sum  of  money,  that  is 
$101,607.18,  to  the  rebuilding  of  the 
buildings  at  said  school,  although 
counsel  for  the  House  Managers  used 
every  effort  and  made  many  insinua- 
tions that  a larger  sum  was  turned 
over  to  Governor  Ferguson,  but  this 
effort  wholly  failed  and  Governor 
Ferguson’s  statement  as  to  the, 
amount  received  and  its  expenditure^ 
stands  unchallenged  in  the  record. 
Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  Gov- 
ernor Ferguson  has  been  during  his 
tenure  in  office  entrusted  with  large 
sums  of  money,  not  one  cent  has  ever 
yet  been  spent  except  for  the  pur- 
pose for  which  it  was  turned  over  to 
him  and  for  which  it  was  appropri- 
ated by  the  Legislature  of  the  State, 
of  Texas.  Not  one  cent  is  in  his 
hands  now;  his  hands  are  entirely 
clean  of  the  State’s  money  or  of  any 
profit  from  it. 


Reasons  for  Vote. 


CLARK. 


(The  following  written  reasons 
were  sent  up  by  members  of  the 
Court) : 

I vote  “aye”  to  sustain  charge 
2 because  former  Governor  Colquitt 
had  the  Canyon  City  fund  amounting 
to  $101,000  in  banks  paying  interest 
on  same  and  giving  a bond  for  safe 
keeping.  Immediately  upon  Govern- 
or Ferguson’s  inauguration  he  began 
to  transfer  this  fund  to  other  banks 
without  interest,  and  placed  approx- 
imately $50,000  of  same  in  the  Tem- 
ple State  Bank  of  which  he  was  a 
stockholder  and  the  same  was  loaned 
out  by  the  Temple  State  Bank  as  ap- 
pears from  the  statement  of  said 
bank.  The  Governor  therefore  de- 
rived the  benefit  from  the  use  of 
State  money  in  violation  of  law,  and 
for  that  reason  I have  cast  my  vote 
as  above  stated. 

BEE. 

I vote  “no”  on  Article  2 of  the  im- 
peachment charges  preferred  against 
Governor  James  E.  Ferguson,  be- 
cause the  testimony  shows  that  Gov- 
ernor James  E.  Ferguson,  upon  tak- 
ing his  office  on  January  19,  1915, 
and  subsequent  thereto,  had  turned 
over  to  him  the  sum  of  $101,607.18 
as  money  derived  from  insurance  col- 
lected on  the  burned  buildings  of  the 
Canyon  City  Normal  School.  Gov- 
ernor Ferguson  exhibited  to  the  Sen- 
ate sitting  as  a Court  of  Impeach- 
ment, checks  showing  the  payment  of 


The  Chair:  The  Secretary  will 
read  Article  3. 

Senator  Bee:  Mr.  President,  I 
suggest,  with  respect  to  the  gallery, 
that  it  is  not  necessary  to  move 
about  when  the  vote  is  announced; 
they  can  keep  their  seats  just  as  well 
when  the  roll  is  being  called,  and  in 
this  way  save  confusion. 

The  Chair:  The  suggestion  is  a 
wise  one.  We  want  you  to  remain 
perfectly  still,  because  we  want  to 
conclude  the  vote  as  expeditiously  as 
we  may. 

Senator  Clark:  Mr.  President,  I 
suggest  that  the  Chair  put  a few 
rangers  up  there  to  preserve  order. 

Senator  McNealus:  I do  not  think 
that  anybody  is  making  as  much 
noise  as  these  pages  running  back 
and  forth  here,  in  and  out  the  door. 

The  Chair:  Do  not  call  upon  the 
pages  at  this  time  any  more  than 
you  can  help,  Senators.  (To  the 
Secretary) : Read  Article  3. 

(The  Secretary  thereupon  read 
Article  3,  as  follows,  to  wit) : 

“Article  3.  That  James  E.  Fergu- 
son testified  under  oath  on  March  11 
and  12,  1917,  before  the  House  In- 
vestigating Committee  that  he  had 
made  arrangements  with  the  Hous- 
ton National  Exchange  Bank  to  take 
up  two  certain  promissory  notes,  one 
signed  by  A.  F.  Ferguson  and  one 
signed  by  J.  H.  Davis,  Jr.,  each  for 
the  sum  of  $37,500.  That  he  fur- 
ther testified  that  he  was  not  indebt- 
I ed  to  the  Temple  State  Bank  at  that 


894 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


time.  That  as  a matter  of  fact,  the 
indebtedness  represented  by  the  said 
notes  was  the  personal  indebtedness 
of  the  said  James  E.  Ferguson,  and 
the  said  notes  had  been  executed  by 
A.  F.  Ferguson  and  J.  H.  Davis,  Jr., 
at  the  instance  of  James  E.  Fergu- 
son, and  for  his  accommodation. 
That  he  had  guaranteed  the  payment 
of  both  of  said  notes,  the  makers 
whereof  were  utterly  unable  to  pay 
them,  which  said  fact  was  known 
to  James  E.  Ferguson.  That  said 
notes  were  eventually  transferred  to 
the  Houston  National  Exchange 
Bank  for  a period  of  about  ten  days 
only  with  the  endorsement  of  and 
guarantee  of  the  Temple  State  Bank, 
and  the  agreement  to  repurchase 
within  a few  days,  and  the  added 
obligation  that  said  Temple  State 
Bank  should  maintain,  during  the 
period  of  time  the  notes  should  be 
held  by  said  Houston  National  Ex- 
change Bank,  on  deposit  with  said 
bank,  an  average  daily  and  compen- 
sating balance'  in  amount  equal  to 
the  total  amount  of  said  notes,  to 
wit,  $7  5,000.  That  as  a matter  of 
fact,  said  James  E.  Ferguson  was 
still  liable  on  said  notes,  and  same 
were  transferred  only  for  a period 
of  ten  days,  and  that  said  transfer 
of  the  notes  was  not  bona  fide.”  • 
The  Chair:  Senators,  the  question 
is.  Shall  this  article  be  sustained? 
Those  of  you  who  believe  the  article 
should  be  sustained  will  answer  aye 
as  your  names  are  called.  Those 
who  do  not  so  believe  will  answer 
no.  The  Secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

Yeas — 18. 

Alderd?co.  Johnston  of  Harris. 

Buchanan  of  Bell.  Lattimore. 
Buchanan  of  Scurry.  McNealus. 


Caldwell. 

Page. 

Collins. 

Robbins. 

Decherd. 

Smith. 

Floyd. 

Strickland. 

Gibson. 

Suiter. 

Johnson  of 

Hall.  Westbrook. 

Nays — 13. 

Bailey. 

Henderson. 

Bee. 

Hopkins. 

Clark. 

Hudspeth. 

Dayton. 

McCollum. 

Dean. 

Parr. 

Hall. 

Woodward. 

Harley. 

The  Secretary  (to  the  Chair): 
Eighteen  ayes  and  thirteen  noes. 

The  Chair:  There  being  eighteen 
ayes  and  thirteen  noes,  this  article 
is  not  sustained. 

Reasons  for  Vote. 

(The  following  written  reasons 
were  sent  up  by  members  of  the 
Court: 

I vote  “no”  on  Article  3 because 
while  I believe  that  the  conduct  was 
improper  the  Governor  has  stated 
that  when  he  transferred  the  notes 
of  James  H.  Davis,  Jr.,  and  A.  F. 
Ferguson  he  guaranteed  the  payment 
of  said  note,  and  as  he  was  solvent 
the  Houston  National  Exchange 
Bank,  to  which  the  said  notes  were 
temporarily  transferred  was  protect- 
ed. This  transaction  does  not  in- 
volve the  conduct  of  the  State  af- 
fairs, but  was  an  affair  dealing  with 
the  Governor’s  private  indebtedness. 
I fel  that  while  it  ought  to  be  con- 
demned, it  is  not  impeachable. 

BEE. 

I vote  “no”  on  Article  3 of  the 
impeachment  charges  against  Gov- 
ernor James  E.  Ferguson,  because 
the  testimony  shows  that  on  the  11th 
and  12th  days  of  March,  1917,  while 
the  Governor  was  being  heard  before 
the  House  Investigating  Committee 
appointed  to  inquire  into  certain 
charges  against  him,  the  two  notes, 
one  signed  by  A.  F.  Ferguson  and 
the  other  by  J.  H.  Davis,  Jr.,  each 
for  the  pum  of  $37,500,  and  payable 
to  the  Temple  State  Bank,  had  been 
taken  up  by  the  Houston  National 
Exchange  Bank  and  sold  to  that 
bank,  and  while  it  has  been  claimed 
by  counsel  for  the  House  Managers 
that  the  sale  was  not  genuine  and 
was  one  only  arranged  in  order  that 
the  time  during  which  the  Investi- 
gating Committee  would  be  in  session 
might  pass  by,  yet  all  the  evidence 
contradicts  and  conclusively  dis- 
proves this  theory  of  the  claim.  The 
president  of  the  Houston  bank  testi- 
fied that  he  bought  the  notes;  the 
Governor  testified  that  he  sold  the 
notes;  no  witness  has  testified  to  the 
contrary,  and  this  charge,  therefore, 
wholly  fails  in  proof. 

CLARK. 

The  Chair:  The  Secretary  will 
read  Article  4. 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


895 


(The  Secretary  thereupon  read  Ar- 
ticle 4,  as  follows,  to  wit)  : 


Nays— 13. 


“Article  4.  That  Janies  E.  Fergu- 
son testified  before  the  House  In- 
vestigating Committee  within  sixty 
days  prior  to  his  giving  said  testi- 
mony he  had  caused  to  be  paid  into 
the  Temple  State  Bank  $112,500  and 
$15,000.  In  other  words,  $127,500 
in  cash  to  the  Temple  State  Bank. 
That  as  a matter  of  fact.  $75,000  of 
said  amount  was  represented  by  the 
A.  F.  Ferguson  note  and  the  J.  H. 
Davis  note  of  $37,500  each,  and  that 
same  were  not  paid  to  the  Temple 
State  Bank  in  cash,  but  were  only 
transferred  to  the  Houston  National 
Exchange  Bank  to  be  held  for  a 
period  of  about  ten  days.  That  as 
a matter  of  fact  said  notes  were  still 
due  by  James  E.  Ferguson,  because 
the  makers  within  his  knowledge 
were  not  able  to  pay  same,  and  he 
had  guaranteed  them  in  writing  to 
the  Temple  State  Bank.  That  said 
transfer  did  not  relieve  the  Temple 
State  Bank  of  the  excessive  loan  of 
James  E.  Ferguson,  because  said  two 
notes  were  endorsed  and  payment 
guaranteed  by  the  Temple  State 
Bank;  and  the  said  James  E.  Fer- 
guson and  the  Temple  State  Bank 
knew  that  after  a period  of  about 
ten  days  said  notes  could  be  returned 
to  the  Temple  State  Bank.  That 
said  two  notes  were  actually  re- 
turned to  the  Temple  State  Bank, 
and  that  after  said  committee  had 
adjourned  the  Temple  State  Bank 
was  carrying  again  the  same  two 
notes  in  violation  of  the  laws  of  the 
State  of  Texas.” 

The  Chair:  Senators,  the  question 
is:  Shall  Article  4 be  sustained? 
Those  who  find  that  Article  4 should 
be  sustained-  will  answer  aye  as  their 
names  are  called;  those  opposed  will 
answer  no.  The  Secretary  will  call 
the  roll. 

(The  Secretary  thereupon  called 
the  roll  as  follows,  to  wit) : 

Yeas — 18. 


AlderdLe.  Johnston  of  Harris. 

Buchanan  of  Bell.  Lattimore. 
Buchanan  of  Scurry.  McNealus. 
Caldwell.  Page. 

Collins.  Robbins. 

Decherd.  Smith. 

Floyd.  Strickland. 

Gibson.  Suiter. 

Johnson  of  Hall.  Westbrook. 


Bailey.  Henderson. 

Bee.  Hopkins. 

Clark.  Hudspeth. 

Dayton.  McCollum. 

Dean.  Parr. 

Hall.  Woodward. 

Harley. 

The  Secretary  (To  the  Chair): 
Eighteen  ayes  and  thirteen  noes,  Mr. 
President. 

The  Chair:  There  being  eighteen 
ayes  and  thirteen  noes.  Article  4 is 
not  sustained. 

Reasons  for  Vote. 

(The  following  written  reasons 
were  sent  up  by  members  of  the; 
Court,  to  wit:) 

I assign  the  same  reason  for  my 
vote  for  Articles  4 and  5 as  given 
for  my  vote  on  Article  3. 

BEE. 


I vote  “no”  on  Article  4 of  the 
articles  of  impeachment  preferred 
against  Governor  James  E.  Ferguson, 
for  the  reasons  stated  above  under 
Articles  2 and  3,  and  for  the  addi- 
tional reason  that  the  time  of  such 
investigation,  to  wit:  On  the  11th 
and  12th  days  of  March,  1917,  the 
two  notes  in  question  were  abun- 
dantly secured  by  collateral  of  un- 
questioned and  undoubted  value; 
that  they  had  been  .sold  in  a bona 
fide  transaction  and  trade  by  the 
Temple  State  Bank  to  the  Houston 
National  Exchange  Bank;  that  they 
were  returned  at  the  request  of  the 
president  of  the  Temple  State  Bank, 
which  request  was  unknown  to  the 
Governor  and  as  soon  as  it  was  dis- 
covered by  the  Governor  he  demand- 
ed that  said  notes  be  returned  to  said 
Houston  bank,  and  that  by  reason  of 
the  facts  and  circumstances  and 
agreement  concerning  the  original 
loan,  which  these  two  notes  in  part 
represented,  said  loan  was  not  in 
violation  of  either  the  spirit  or  the 
letter  of  the  banking  laws  of  Texas. 

CLARK. 

The  Chair:  The  Secretary  will 
read  Article  5. 

(Thereupon,  the  Secretary  read  Ar- 
ticle 5,  as  follows,  to  wit:) 

“Article  5.  That  James  E.  Fergu- 
son testified  under  oath  before  the 


896 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


House  Investigating  Committee  on 
March  11  and  12,  1917,  that  he  was 
not  indebted  to  the  Temple  State  Bank. 
That  at  said  time  he  owed  the  said 
bank  a note  for  $11,243.07,  on  which 
there  had  been  paid  by  him  on  Feb- 
ruary 13,  1917,  and  less  than  a month 
before  he  testified,  the  sum  of  about 
$3,029.00,  leaving  a balance  due  on 
said  note  of  more  than  $8,000,  which 
was  then  owing  to  the  Temple  State 
Bank,  and  was  not  paid  until  June  16, 
1917.” 

The  Chair:  Senators,  the  question 
is,  shall  Article  5 be  sustained?  Those 
who  find  that  said  Article  5 shall  be 
sustained,  will  answer  “Aye”  as  their 
names  are  called;  those  opposed,  “No.” 
The  Secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

(The  Secretary  thereupon  proceed- 
ed to  call  the  roll  as  follows,  to  wit: ) 

Yeas — 14. 


Alderdice.  Johnson  of  Hall. 

Buchanan  of  Bell.  McNealus. 
Buchanan  of  Scurry.  Robbins. 


Caldwell. 

Collins. 

Dean. 

Decherd. 


Smith. 

Strickland. 

Suiter. 

Westbrook. 


Nays — 17 


Bailey. 

Bee. 

Clark. 

Dayton. 

Floyd. 

Gibson. 

Hall. 

Harley. 

Henderson. 


Hopkins. 

Hudspeth. 

Johnston  of  Harris. 

Lattimore. 

McCollum. 

Page. 

Parr. 

Woodward. 


The  Secretary  (To  the  Chair) : 
Fourteen  Ayes  and  seventeen  Noes. 

The  Chair:  There  being  fourteen 
Ayes  and  seventeen  Noes,  Article  5 is 
not  sustained. 


that  at  the  time  the  Governor  testi- 
fied before  the  House  Investigating 
Committee,  on  the  11th  and  12th 
days  of  March,  1917,  he  did  not 
know  that  the  note  known  as  the 
Whitley  Cotton  Company  note,  and 
which  is  otherwise  described  as  the 
Alex  Mears  & Co.  note,  was  owned 
by  the  Temple  State  Bank;  and  for 
the  further  reason  that  all  of  the 
testimony  disputes  the  charge  and 
claim  that  the  Governor  knowingly 
misstated  any  fact  in  connection  with 
the  said  Whitley  Cotton  Company 
note. 

CLARK. 

The  Chair:  The  Secretary  will 
read  Article  6. 

(The  Secretary  thereupon  read  Ar- 
ticle 6,  as  follows,  to  wit:) 

“Article  6.  That  there  was  deposit- 
ed by  James  E.  Ferguson,  in  Jthe  Tem- 
ple State  Bank  on  or  about  the  month 
of  January.  1917,  the  sum  of  $60,000 
belonging  to  the  State  of  Texas  and 
in  the  possession  of  the  Secretary  of 
State  by  virtue  of  his  office,  said 
amount  being  represented  by  a check 
of  the  Secretary  of  State,  althougn  the 
State  Treasury  was  open  for  the  pur- 
pose of  receiving  same.  That  James 
E.  Ferguson  was  a stockholder  in  said 
bank,  owning  more  than  one-fourth  of 
the  stock,  and  that  the  said  Temple 
State  Bank  and  James  E.  Ferguson 
used  said  fund  and  received^  the  profit 
and  benefit,  the  said  James  E.  Fergu* 
son  receiving  more  than  one-fourth  of 
the  profits  and  of  the  benefits.” 

The  Chair:  Senators,  the  question 
is,  shall  Article  6 be  sustained?  Those 
who  believe  that  said  Article  6 shall 
be  sustained,  will  answer  “Aye,”  when 
their  names  are  called;  those  who  do 
not  so  believe,  will  answer  “No.”  The 
Secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

(The  Secretary  thereupon  called  the 
roll,  as  follows,  to  wit:) 


Reasons  for  Vote. 


Yeas — 24. 


(The  following  written  reasons 
were  sent  up  by  members  of  the 
Court,  to  wit:) 

I assign  the  same  reason  for  my 
vote  for  Articles  4 and  5 as  given 
for  my  vote  on  Article  3. 

BEE. 

I vote  “no”  on  Article  5 of  the 
impeachment  charges  preferred 
against  Governor  James  E.  Ferguson 
because  the  undisputed  testimony  is 


Alderdice. 

Bailey. 

Bee. 

Buchanan  of  Bell. 
Buchanan  of  Scurry. 
Caldwell. 

Collins. 

Dean. 

Decherd. 

Floyd. 

Gibson. 

Harley. 


Henderson. 

Hopkins. 

Johnson  of  Hall. 
Lattimore. 
McCollum. 
McNealus. 

Page. 

Robbins. 

Smith. 

Strickland. 

Suiter. 

Westbrook. 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


897 


Nays — 7. 

Clark.  Johnston  of  Harris. 

Dayton.  Parr. 

Hall.  Woodward. 

Hudspeth. 

The  Secretary  (To  the  Chair) : 
Twenty-four  Ayes  and  seven  Noes. 

The  Chair:  There  being  twenty- 
four  Ayes  and  seven  Noes,  Article  6 is 
sustained. 


besides,  has  already  been  turned  in 
and  that  the  Treasurer  was  settled 
with  promptly  at  the  time  when  such 
settlements  were  required  to  be 
made,  is  convincing  of  the  proof  that 
placing  it  on  deposit  in  the  Temple 
State  Bank  did  not  in  any  way  en- 
danger its  safety.  Therefore,  most 
manifestly,  this  charge  is  not  made 
out. 

CLARK. 


Reasons  for  Vote. 

(The  following  written  reasons 
were  sent  up  by  members  of  the  Court, 
to  wit: ) 

I vote  “aye”  on  Article  6 because 
I believe  that  as  soon  as  the  money 
is  properly  cleared  it  ought  to  be  de- 
posited in  the  State  Treasury  as  con- 
templated by  law.  The  evidence  un- 
der this  charge  shows  that  the  Gov- 
ernor secured  a check  from  the  Sec- 
retary of  State  and  took  same  at 
night  to  Temple  and  deposited  in  the 
Temple  State  Bank,  in  which  he  was 
a stockholder  and  for  the  purpose  of 
arranging  a difficulty  existing  be- 
tween himself  and  the  Board  of  Di- 
rectors by  giving  the  said  bank  a 
large  deposit.  This  constituted  a mis- 
application of  funds  under  the  law. 

BEE. 

I vote  “no”  on  Article  6 of  the 
articles  of  impeachment  preferred 
against  Governor  James  E.  Ferguson 
for  the  reason  that  under  Article 
3836  of  the  Revised  Civil  Statutes 
of  1911,  I believe  that  franchise  taxes 
are  only  required  to  be  settled  for 
with  the  State  Treasurer  every  nine- 
ty days;  that  by  the  express  terms 
of  Articles;  3837,  3838,  3839  and 
3840,  only  Vhe  Tees  of  office  are  re- 
quired to  be  paid  into  the  State 
Treasury  monthly.  An  entirely  dif- 
ferent, separate  and  distinct  chapter 
of  the  statute  is  devoted  to  the  sub- 
ject of  franchise  taxes,  and,  there- 
fore, I have  satisfied  myself  that  the 
settlement  of  the  franchise  taxes  are 
only  required  quarterly.  This  being 
true,  it  was  necessary  to  put  the 
amount  of  money  mentioned  in  this 
article,  to  wit:  $6  0,000,  in  some 
bank,  because  the  time  had  not  ar- 
rived in  which  it  could  or  was  re- 
quired to  be  placed  in  the  State 
Treasury.  One  bank,  if  safe,  was  as 
good  as  another,  and  the  fact  that 
all  of  this  money,  and  much  more 


The  Chair:  Senators,  the  question 
is,  shall  Article  7 be  sustained  You 
who  find  that  said  Article  shall  be  sus- 
tained, will  answer  “Aye”  as  your 
names  are  called;  those  of  you  who 
find  it  shall  not  be  sustained,  will 
answer  “No.”  The  Secretary  will 
call  the  roll. 

(The  Secretary  thereupon  called  the 
roll,  as  follows,  to  wit:) 


Yeas — 26. 


Alderdice. 

Bailey. 

Bee. 

Buchanan  of  Bell 
Buchanan  of  Scurry. 
Caldwell. 

Collins. 

Dayton. 

Dean. 

Decherd. 

Floyd. 

Gibson. 

Harley. 


Henderson. 

Hopkins. 

Johnson  of  Hall. 
Johnston  of  Harris. 
Lattimore. 
McCollum. 
McNealus. 

Page. 

Robbins. 

Smith. 

Strickland. 

Suiter. 

Westbrook. 


Nays — 5. 


Clark.  Parr, 

Hall.  Woodward. 

Hudspeth. 

The  Secretary  (To  the  Chair)  * 
Twenty-six  Ayes  and  five  Noes,  Mr. 
President. 

The  Chair:  There  being  twenty- 
six  Ayes  and  five  Noes,  Article  7 is 
sustained. 


Reasons  for  Vote. 

(The  following  written  reasons 
were  sent  up  by  members  of  the  Court, 
to  wit: ) 

I vote  “aye”  on  Article  7 because 
the  Governor  after  the  investigation 
in  the  House  in  March  of  1917  ac- 
companied by  the  President  of  the 
Temple  State  Bank  deposited  with 
the  American  National  Bank  of  Aus- 
tin, $250,000  of  the  State’s  funds, 


898 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


which  should  have  been  transferred 
to  the  Treasury  and  the  American 
National  Bank  paid  to  the  Temple 
State  Bank  of  which  the  Governor 
was  a stockholder  interest  on  said 
deposit,  and  this  in  my  opinion  con- 
stituted a violation  of  law. 

BEE. 

I vote  “no”  on  Article  7 of  the  im- 
peachment charges  preferred  against 
Governor  James  E.  Ferguson,  for  the 
same  reasons  as  just  set  forth  with 
reference  to  Article  6,  and  for  the 
still  further  reason  that  the  undis- 
puted proof  is  that  the  Governor 
knew  nothing  about  any  interest  ar- 
rangement between  any  of  the  Aus- 
tin banks  and  the  Temple  State  Bank 
and  believed  that  in  truth  and  in  fact 
no  interest  would  be  paid  by  the 
American  National  Bank,  or  any 
other  Austin  bank,  to  the  Temple 
State  Bank  in  view  of  the  short  time 
that  would  lapse  between  the  times 
of  depositing  the  moneys  mentioned 
in  these  articles  and  the  times  when 
settlements  were  required  by  law  to 
be  made  with  the  State  Treasurer. 
The  unquestioned  proof  is  that  the 
question  of  profit  or  benefit  to  the 
Governor  never  entered  his  mind  and 
was  not  considered  by  him.  There 
is  no  proof  that  it  was.  The  Govern- 
or’s testimony  is  uncontradicted  that 
it  did  not.  And.  therefore,  this 
charge  is  not  sustained. 

CLARK. 

The  Chair:  The  Secretary  will 
Read  Article  8. 

(The  Secretary  thereupon  read  Ar- 
ticle 8,  as  follows,  to  wit: ) 

“Article  8.  That  James  E.  Fergu- 
son sought  to  have  the  State  Highway 
Commissioner  deposit  State  funds  of 
that  department  with  the  Temple  State 
Bank  so  that  said  bank  might  receive 
the  profit  and  benefit  from  same,  and 
he  being  a heavy  stockholder,  would 
have  received  a portion  of  the  bene- 
fits. That  he  also  had,  or  permitted, 
other  departments  of  the  State  govern- 
ment to  deposit  money  with  the  Tem- 
ple State  Bank,  or  with  other  banks, 
to  the  credit  of  the  Temple  State  Bank, 
said  amounts  belonging  to  the  State 
of  Texas,  and  that  the  Temple  State 
Bank  profited  from  the  use  of  said 
funds,  and  that  said  James  E.  Fergu- 
son received  more  than  one-fourth  of 
the  profit  and  benefit.” 

The  Chair:  Senators,  the  question 


is,  shall  Article  8 be  sustained?  Those 
who  believe  that  said  Article  8 should 
be  sustained,  will  answer  “Aye”  as 
their  names  are  called;  those  who  do 
not  so  believe,  will  answer  “No.”  The 
Secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

(The  Secertary  thereupon  called  tl\g 
roll,  as  follows,  to  wit:) 

Yeas — 9. 

Alderdice.  Decherd. 

Buchanan  of  Bell.Johnson  of  Hall. 
Buchanan  of  Scurry.  Lattimore. 


Caldwell. 

Collins. 

Westbrook. 

Nays — 2 2. 

Bailey. 

Hudspeth. 

Bee. 

Johnston  of  Harris. 

Clark. 

McCo”™ 

Dayton. 

McNealus. 

Dean. 

Page. 

Floyd. 

Parr. 

Gibson. 

Robbins. 

Hall. 

Smith. 

Harley. 

Strickland. 

Henderson. 

Suiter. 

Hopkins. 

Woodward. 

The  Secretary  (to  the  Chair): 
There  being  nine  “ayes”  and  twenty- 
two  “noes,”  the  article  is  not  sus- 
tained. 

(The  following  written  reasons 
were  sent  up  by  members  of  the 
Court,  to  wit:) 

Reason  for  Vote. 

I do  not  consider  that  there  is  any 
merit  in  Charge  8, 

BEE. 

I vote  “no”  on  Article  8 of  the  im- 
peachment charges  preferred  against 
Governor  James  E.  Ferguson,  for  the 
reason  that  the  testimony  of  the  Hon. 
Curtis  Hancock,  chairman  of  the 
State  Highway  Commission,  estab- 
lishes beyond  any  doubt  that  the 
Governor  only  offered  to  recommend 
that  the  Temple  State  Bank  help  ac- 
commodate the  State  Highway  Com- 
mission in  collecting  checks  sent  to 
the  Commision  under  the  law  passed 
by  the  Thirty-fifth  Legislature.  Why 
any  one  should  or  could  insist  upon 
this  charge  it  is  impossible  for  me 
to  conceive.  The  only  witness  intro- 
duced was  the  Hon.  Curtis  Hancock. 
He  plainly  exonerates  the  Governor, 
and  there  is  and  should  be  no  quea- 


SENATE  OURNAL. 


899 


tion  about  this  charge  being  wholly 
unsupported  by  the  proof,  or  by  any 
proof  whatsoever. 

CLARK. 

I want  to  incorporate  in  the  Jour- 
nal, as  a matter  of  record,  my  rea- 
sons for  voting  against  the  above 
Article  of  Impeachment.  This  reason 
being  that  I do  not  believe  the  of- 
fense complained  of  would  justify 
the  severe  punishment  of  removal 
from  office,  although  I feel  that  the 
Governor  has  misused  the  authority 
vested  in  him  and  has  committed  a 
gross  error,  it  hardly  justifies  pun- 
ishment above  suggested. 

ROBBINS. 

I vote  “no”  on  this  article,  for  the 
reason  that  the  same  is  too  general, 
and  is  in  part  not  sustained,  and  part 
covered  by  and  incorporated  in  other 
articles. 

HARLEY. 

I vote  “no”  on  Article  8,  because 
the  charge  is  vague  and  indefinite, 
and  for  the  further  reason  that  the 
evidence  relating  to  the  Governor’^ 
seeking  to  have  the  State  Highway 
Commissioner  deposit  the  funds  of 
that  Commission  with  Temple  State 
Bank,  was  not  conclusive,  and  there-4 
fore,  the  charge  is  not  substant- 
iated.” 

SMITH. 

“The  proof  as  to  Article  8 shows 
that  the  Governor  requested  the 
Chairman  of  the  Highway  Commis- 
sion to  deposit  checks  in  the  Templq 
State  Bank  for  the  purpose  of  col-; 
lecting  the  checks  and  transferring 
the  money  to  the  Treasurer.  In  other 
words,  it  was  only  a clearing  propo4 
sition.  And  for  that  reason,  not  in 
violation  of  the  law.  The  latter 
part  of  the  charge  complains  of  his 
having  permitted  other  departments 
to  deposit  money  in  the  Temple  State 
Bank,  or  with  other  banks,  to  the 
credit  of  the  Temple  State  Bank.  It 
appears  to  me  that  these  officers  are 
responsible  for  their  own  acts,  and 
if  they  have  acted  in  violation  of  the 
law,  that  they  should  be  punished 
therefor,  and  that  the  mere  permis- 
sion of  the  deposit  in  the  Temple 
State  Bank  is  not  sufficient  grounds 
for  impeachment,  I therefore,  vote 
“no.” 

SUITER. 


Senator  Gibson:  Mr.  President. 

The  Chair:  Senator  Gibson. 

Senator  Gibson:  I desire  to  call 
attention  to  the  fact  that  in  Article 
9 is  incorporated  a series  of  articles 
that  have  been  voted  on,  some  of 
them  one  way  and  some  another, 
and  it  is  impossible  for  this  Senate 
to  vote  on  those  articles  as  named 
there,  as  I conceive  it,  as  they  would 
like  to  vote. 

The  Chair:  Each  Senator  will 
have  to  decide  that  for  himself,  the 
Chair  will  state. 

Senator  Bee:  Will  the  Senator 
yield? 

Senator  Gibson:  I yield  to  the 
Senator  from  Bexar. 

Senator  Bee:  I suggest  that  on 
that  vote  we  passed  on  Section  (a) 
and  Section  (b)  and  Section  (c), 
each  having  been  voted  on  before, 
either  aye  or  no,  and  if  it  had  al- 
ready been  voted  on  before — Sec- 
tions (a),  (b)  and  (c),  a man  can’t 
vote  aye  or  no  now  because  he  voted 
on  it  before.  I suggest,  therefore, 
that  we  pass  on  the  demurrer  and 
then  vote  on  Section  (c). 

Senator  Bailey:  Mr.  President. 

The  Chair:  The  Senator  from 
DeWitt. 

Senator  Bailey:  Mr.  President,  I 
would  suggest  to  the  Chair  that  they 
are  bound  to  vote  on  the  articles, 
and  that  if  any  Senator  finds  him- 
self in  such  a position  here  as  having 
voted  for  one  and  against  the  other, 
he  can  keep  his  record  straight  by 
being  marked  “present  and  not 
voting”  on  this  article,  all  of  (a), 
(b)  and  (c)  having  been  voted  on, 
some  of  the  Senators  voting  aye  on 
some  of  them  and  no  on  the  other. 

The  Chair:  Let’s  have  order. 

Senator  Bailey:  It  seems  to  be 
a summary  of  the  three  articles  and 
then  a conclusion  in  each,  a conclu- 
sion of  law.  I think  if  a Senator 
does  not  care  to  vote  on  it  he  can 
be  marked  “present.” 

The  Chair:  That  suggestion  can 
be  adopted  by  any  Senator  who  de- 
sires it. 

Senator  Gibson:  Does  the  Chair 
rule  that  we  shall  take  this  article 
and  vote  on  it  by  subdivisions,  allow- 
ing each  Senator  to  use  his  preroga- 
tive of  being  marked  “present  and 
not  voting”  if  he  so  desires? 

The  Chair:  I think  so.  I do  not 
think,  however,  under  the  rules  we 
can  subdivide  the  article;  it  is  pre- 
sented as  a single  article  and  we  will 


900 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


have  to  vote  on  it  as  a single  article. 

Senator  Gibson:  Mr.  President,  I 
do  not  desire  to  take  up  any  time, 
but  wanted  to  facilitate  matters. 

Senator  Suiter:  Mr.  President. 

The  Chair:  Senator  Suiter: 

Senator  Suiter:  As  a matter  of 
information  I would  lil^e  to  know  if 
this  article  9 involves  more  than  one 
charge?  It  seems  to  me  there  is 
only  one  charge  in  the  article,  (a), 
(b)  and  (c)  as  set  out  in  paragraphs 
are  only  explanatory  of  that  charge, 
(b)  being  a summary  of  the  charge, 
and  for  that  reason  there  is  only  one 
charge  in  Article  9. 

The  Chair:  I will  have  the  Secre- 
tary read  the  charge  and  then  each 
member  of  the  Court  must  decide  the 
question  for  himself  and  vote  as  his 
judgment- 

Senator  Hopkins:  Mr.  President, 
doesn’t  the  Chair  construe  this 
charge  to  be  charging  the  same  of- 
fenses as  were  charged  in  Articles  6 
and  7,  just  as  you  charge  the  same 
offenses  in  an  indictment  under  sev- 
eral different  counts? 

Senator  Clark:  Mr.  President,  I 
move  that  we  proceed  to  vote.  If 
these  Senators  don’t  know  how  to 
vote,  if  they  will  ask  me  I wrill  tell 
them.  (Laughter.) 

Senator  Hopkins:  There  is  one 
additional  charge,  that  is  (c),  touch- 
ing the  Commissioner  of  Banking 
and  Insurance,  and  if  there  is  any 
way  by  which  we  could  do  so  I be- 
lieve it  would  be  well  to  eliminate 
Sections  (a)  and  (b)  and  then  vote 
upon  that  article  with  Section  (c) 
remaining.  If  we  sustain  two  charges 
on  the  same  article,  won’t  we  sustain 
this  charge  by  having  already  sus- 
tained Articles  6 and  7? 

The  Chair:  The  Chair  does  not 
feel  that  it  is  one  of  his  prerogatives 
to  try  to  explain  the  charges  to  the 
Senators,  they  all  being  members  of 
the  Court.  The  Secretary  will  call 
the  roll. 

The  Secretary:  I have  not  read 
the  charge  yet. 

The  Chair:  Read  the  charge,  then. 
Let’s  have  attention  to  the  reading 
of  Article  9. 

The  Secretary  (reading)  : “Arti- 
cle 9.  That  the  said  James  E.  Fer- 
guson has  himself  deposited,  or 
caused  or  permitted  to  be  deposited, 
funds  in  banks  when  the  Treasury 
of  the  State  of  Texas  was  open  for 
business,  which  funds  should  have 
been  in  the  State  Treasury.  That 


he  has  used  and  permitted  the  use 
of  funds  by  officers  appointed  by  him 
for  purposes  other  than  the  paying 
of  same  into  the  Treasury  of  this 
State,  said  funds  being  substantially 
as  follows: 

“(a)  That  about  the  month  of 
January,  1917,  he  deposited  with 
the  Temple  State  Bank  the  sum  of 
$60,000  of  funds  in  the  possession 
of  the  Secretary  of  State. 

“(b)  That  on  May  29,  1917,  in 
company  with  T.  H.  Heard,  president 
of  the  Temple  State  Bank,  he  per- 
mitted the  deposit  of  funds  in  the 
possession  of  the  Secretary  of  State 
to  the  credit  of  the  Temple  State 
Bank  in  an  amount  of  $250,000. 

“(c)  That  he  permitted  the  Com- 
missioner of  the  Insurance  and 
Banking  Department  to  deposit  funds 
during  the  year  1916  with  the  Tem- 
ple State  Bank  in  an  amount  of 
more  than  $101,000. 

“(d)  That  each  and  all  of  the 
above  acts  were  knowingly  and  will- 
fully committed  by  the  said  James 
E.  Ferguson.” 

The  Chair:  Senators,  the  question 
is:  Shall  Article  9 be  sustained? 

Those  of  you  who  find  that  said 
Article  9 should  be  sustained  will 
answer  “aye”  as  your  names  are 
called;  those  who  do  not  so  find  will 
answer  ‘“no.”  The  Secretary  will 
call  the  roll. 

(The  Secretary  thereupon  called 
the  roll,  the  vote  being  as  follows,, 
to  wit) : 


Yeas — 15. 

'ttw  •ron'mr  ; w 

Alderdice.  Lattimore. 

Buchanan  of  Scurry. McNealus. 


Caldwell. 

Collins. 

Decherd. 

Gibson. 
Henderson. 
Johnson  of  Hall. 


Robbins. 

Smith. 

Strickland. 

Suiter. 

Westbrook. 


Nays — 12. 


Bee. 

Harley. 

Clark. 

Hopkins. 

Dayton. 

Hudspeth. 

Dean. 

McCollum. 

Floyd. 

Parr. 

Hall. 

Woodward. 

Present — Not  Voting. 


Bailey.  Johnston  of  Harris. 

Buchanan  of  Bell.  Page, 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


901 


The  Chair:  There  being  15  ayes, 
12  noes,  4 present  and  not  voting, 
the  article  is  not  sustained. 

Reasons  for  Vote. 

(The  following  written  reasons 
were  sent  up  by  members  of  the 
Court.) 

I feel  that  Article  9 has  been  dis- 
posed of  by  Articles  6 and  7,  and  that 
a demurrer  should  be  sustained  to 
subsection  (c). 

BEE. 


soever,  when  as  a matter  of  fact  he 
was  indebted  to  same  at  that  time 
for  more  than  was  authorized  by 
law.” 

The  Chair:  Senators,  the  question 
is:  Shall  Article  10  be  sustained? 
Those  of  you  who  find  that  said  ar- 
ticle should  be  sustained  will  answer 
“aye”  as  your  names  are  called; 
those  who  fail  to  so  find  will  answer 
“no.”  The  Secretary  will  call  the 
roll. 

The  Secretary  thereupon  called 
the  roll,  the  vote  being  as  follows, 
to  wit: 


I vote  “no”  on  Article  9,  and  on 
subdivisions  (a)  and  (b)  thereof,  for 
the  reasons  'already  set  forth  with 
reference  to  Articles  6 and  7,  and  on 
subdivision  (c)  for  the  reason  that 
the  proof  wholly  fails  on  this  subdi- 
vision. The  Governor  testified  that 
he  did  not  know  until  after  the  de- 
posit was  made  by  the  late  Commis- 
sioner of  Insurance  and  Banking,  th© 
Hon.  John  S.  Patterson,  that  any  de- 
posit was  to  be  or  had  been  made; 
that  he  knew  nothing  about  any  ar- 
rangement about  any  interest  on  the 
deposit,  if  in  fact  any  such  arrange- 
ment was  ever  made;  that  he  had  no 
knowledge  that  said  deposit  was  in 
contemplation  and  did  not  advise  or 
suggest  that  Mr.  Patterson  make  such 
deposit.  This  testimony  is  not  de- 
nied— not  disputed  by  any  witness, 
and  the  charge  has  wholly  failed  of 
substantiation. 

, CLARK. 

I .vote  no  on  Article  9 for  the 
reason  the  charges  contained  in  same 
are  included  in  Articles  6 and  7. 

FLOYD. 

I vote  “no”  for  the  reason  that 
this  article  is  incorporated  in  other 
articles. 

HARLEY. 

The  Chair:  The  Secretary  will 
read  Article  10. 

The  Secretary  (reading):  “Arti- 
cle 10.  That  on  March  3,  1917,  he 
stated  in  a public  speech  before  the 
House  of  Representatives,  which 
body  had  under  consideration  a reso- 
lution to  investigate  charges  of  offi- 
cial misconduct  against  him  (one  of 
said  charges  being  borrowing  more 
money  from  the  Temple  State  Bank 
than  was  authorized  by  the  laws  of 
Texas),  that  he  was  not  indebted  to 
the  said  bank  in  any  amount  what- 


Yeas— 13. 


Alderdice.  Johnson  of  Hall. 

Buchanan  of  Bell.  Latthnore. 
Buchanan  of  ScurryMcNealus. 


Caldwell. 

Collins. 

Decherd. 

Floyd. 


Strickland. 

Suiter. 

Westbrook. 


Nays — 18. 


Bailey. 

Bee. 

Clark. 

Dayton. 

Dean. 

Gibson. 

Hall. 

Harley. 

Henderson. 


Hopkins. 

Hudspeth. 

Johnston  of  Harris. 
McCollum. 

Page. 

Parr. 

Robbins. 

Smith. 

Woodward. 


The  Chair:  The  Senator  from 
Dallas  is  not  in  the  Chamber. 

Senator  Bee:  I suggest  that  we 
suspend  for  a minute  until  he  re- 
turns. 

Senator  Hudspeth:  He  can  be  re- 
corded when  he  comes  in. 

The  Chair:  We  can  record  him 
when  he  comes  in. 

The  Secretary:  12  ayes  and  18 
noes,  Mr.  President. 

The  Chair:  There  being  12  ayes 
and  18  noes,  Article  10  is  not  sus- 
tained. 

Reason  for  Vote. 


(The  following  written  reasons 
were  sent  up  by  members  of  the 
Court)  : 

I vote  “no”  on  Article  10  because 
it  is  covered  by  Articles  3 and  4. 

BEE. 


I vote  “no”  on  Article  10  of  the  im- 
peachment charges  preferred  against 


902 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


Governor  James  E.  Ferguson,  for  the 
reason  that  the  evidence  shows  that 
at  the  time  mentioned  in  said  article, 
to  wit:  on  March  3,  1917,  all  of  the 
indebtedness  of  the  Governor  to  the 
Temple  State  Bank,  had  been  taken 
up  by  the  Governor  by  four  notes, 
each  for  the  sum  of  $37,500;  that 
one  of  said  notes  was  a personal 
note  of  the  Governor  and  at  that  time 
had  already  been  fully  paid  off;  one 
of  said  notes  was  a note  of  the  Bell- 
Bosque  Stock  Farm  and  was  not  the 
Governor’s  personal  obligation;  that 
the  other  two  notes  had  ben  executed 
by  A.  F.  Ferguson  and  J.  H.  Davis, 
Jr.,  with  collateral  attached  to  se- 
cure the  payment  of  said  notes,  and 
the  statements  referred  to  in  Article 
10  of  said  charges  are  true,  all  of 
which  is  fully  sustained  by  the  entire 
proof. 

CLARK. 


sentatives  of  the  people  of  Texas  an 
accounting  of  said  $156,500  in  cur- 
rency, which  He  received  during  ses- 
sions of  the  Legislature  or  shortly 
thereafter,  and  the  receipt  of  such 
sums  in  currency,  and  the  failure  to 
account  for  same,  constitutes  official 
misconduct.” 

The  Chair:  Senators,  the  question 
is:  Shall  Article  11  be  sustained? 

Senator  McNealus:  I wish  to  state 
that  I was  out  of  the  Chamber  when 
the  vote  was  taken — when  Article  10 
was  read. 

The  Chair:  It  was  agreed  that 
you  might  have  consent  to  record 
your  vote  when  you  came  in. 

Senator  McNealus:  I desire  unan- 
imous consent  to  be  marked  as  vot- 
ing that  Article  10  be  sustained. 

(The  Secretary  thereupon  called 
the  roll,  the  vote  being  as  follows, 
to  wit)  : 


I want  to  incorporate  in  the  Jour- 
nal, as  a matter  of  record,  my  rea- 
sons for  voting  against  the  above 
Article  of  Impeachment.  TlTis  reason 
being  that  I do  not  believe  the  of- 
fense complained  of  would  justify 
the  severe  punishment  of  removal 
from  office,  although  I feel  that  the 
Governor  has  misused  the  authority 
vested  in  him  and  has  committed  a 
gross  error,  it  hardly  justifies  pun- 
ishment above  suggested. 

ROBBINS. 

The  Chair:  The  Secretary  will 
read  Article  11. 

The  Secretary  (reading):  “Arti- 
cle 11.  That  in  this  investigation  of 
James  E.  Ferguson  by  the  Commit- 
tee of  the  Whole  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives said  James  E.  Ferguson 
testified  that  during  the  Regular 
Session  of  the  Thirty-fifth  Legisla- 
ture and  shortly  thereafter  he  re- 
ceived from  parties  certain  currency 
in  varying  amounts,  the  total  of 
which  was  about  $156,500.  That 
said  transaction  is  unusual  and  ques- 
tionable, and  that  the  said  James  E. 
Ferguson  when  questioned  as  to  who 
loaned  him  this  money  declined  to 
answer,  although  the  officer  of  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole  appointed 
to  pass  on  the  admissibility  of  testi- 
mony ruled  that  he  should  answer, 
and  the  Committee  sustained  said 
ruling.  That  he  is  thus  not  only  in 
contempt  of  the  House  and  its  com- 
mittee, but  he  insists  that  he  is  not 
required  to  give  before  the  repre- 


Yeas— 27. 

Alderdice.  Hopkins. 

Bailey.  Hudspeth. 

Bee.  Johnson  of  Hall. 

Buchanan  of  Bell.  Johnston  of  Harris. 

Buchanan  of  ScurryLattimore. 


Caldwell. 

Collins. 

Dayton. 

Dean. 

Decherd. 

Floyd. 

Gibson. 

Harley. 

Henderson. 


Clark. 

Hall. 


McCollum. 

McNealus. 

Page. 

Robbins. 

Smith. 

Strickland. 

Suiter. 

Westbrook. 


Nays — 4. 


Parr. 

Woodward. 


The  Chair:  There  being  27  ayes 
and  4 noes.  Article  11  is  sustained. 

Reasons  for  Vote. 

(The  following  written  reasons 
were  sent  up  by  members  of  the 
Court) : 

I vote  “aye”  on  Article  11  because 
as  I have  heretofore  stated  sound, 
public  policy  and  good  government 
demands  that  the  Governor  of  this 
State  shall  not  borrow  money  in 
large  amounts,  secure  the  money  in 
currency  in  a secret  manner  and  re- 
fuse to  disclose  the  source  thereof. 

BEE. 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


903 


I vote  “no”  on  Article  11  of  the  im- 
peachment charges  prefered  against 
Governor  James  E.  Ferguson,  for  the 
reason  that  the  Governor  testified, 
both  in  the  House  of  Representatives 
and  before  the  Senate  of  Texas  sit- 
ting as  a High  Court  of  Impeach- 
ment, that -the  transaction  concerning 
his  borrowing  the  $156,000  was  open 
and  above-hoard;  an  honest  day-light 
transaction  between  himself  and  gen- 
tlemen who  were  not  interested  in 
any  way  in  legislation,  departmental 
matters,  or  any  other  like  Questions. 
That  he  did  not  obtain  said  money 
from  the  head  of  any  department. 
Inasmuch  as  this  article  does  not  al- 
lege any  corruption  in  office,  I vote 
“no,”  because  this  was  a private  peril 
sonal  transaction  of  the  Governor, 
proved  by  him  and  undisputed  by 
the  evidence  to  have  been  guiltless  of 
any  impropriety  of  any  character 
whatever.  The  Governor  of  Texas 
has  bared  his  private  affairs  to  the 
inspection  of  the  public  time  and 
again,  and  the  fact  that  he  had  given 
his  word  that  he  would  not  disclose 
the  source  from  which  he  borrowed 
this  money,  nor  the  names  of  those 
who  loaned  it  to  him,  is  a tribute  to 
his  determination  to  keep  his  word 
inviolate.  This  charge  ought  not  to 
be  sustained,  and  the  House  Man- 
agers have  wholly  failed  to  show  that 
it  is  an  impeachable  transaction,  and 
have  failed  even  to  show  that  it  is 
an  impropriety. 

CLARK. 

Reason  for  voting  “no”  as  I did 
on  the  submission  of  the  matter  to 
the  Senate  by  the  presiding  officer, 
as  to  whether  or  not  the  Governor 
should  answer  the  question  as  to  the 
source  from  which  came  the  $156,- 
500:  In  my  judgment,  when  he  re- 
fused to  answer  the  question,  he 
convicted  himself  upon  the  charge 
embraced  in  the  article  covering  this 
matter.  For  this  reason  I will  be 
forced  to  sustain  this  count. 

HUDSPETH. 


Senator  Hudspeth:  Do  you  con- 
sider that  it  is  the  same  money  he 
is  charged  with  converting  in  Arti- 
cle 1? 

Senator  Bee:  The  first  is  with 
reference  to  the  Canyon  City  funds; 
the  other  refers  to  the  Adjutant  Gen- 
eral’s fund. 

Senator  Hudspeth:  That  is  true, 
but  it  is  the  same  money;  it  is  the 
same  in  one  place  as  in  another,  ac- 
cording to  the  testimony. 

Senator  Bee:  It  is  two  separate 
things. 

Senator  Hudspeth:  What  is  the 
ruling  of  the  Chair? 

The  Chair:  Let  the  article  be 
read.  The  Chair  is  of  the  opinion 
that  it  is  not  the  same  thing.  I don’t 
know  that  the  Chair  should  state 
that,  though. 

The  Secretary:  Which  one  does 
he  want  read? 

The  Chair:  Read  Article  12. 

The  Secretary  (reading) : “Arti- 
cle 12.  That  James  E.  Ferguson  had 
on  deposit  during  the  year  1916  in 
the  American  National  Bank  to  his 
account  as  Governor  certain  sums  of 
money  belonging  to  the  Adjutant 
General’s  Department  of  Texas  ag- 
gregating more  than  $3,000,  said 
funds  being  the  property  of  the 
State  of  Texas,  but  set  aside  for  that 
department.  That  in  violation  of 
the  statutes  of  Texas  he  diverted 
these  funds  from  their  lawful  pur- 
pose and  paid  same  as  a portion  of 
the  amount  for  the  construction  of 
buildings  of  the  Normal  College  lo- 
cated at  Canyon  City.” 

The  Chair:  Senators,  the  question 
is:  Shall  Article  12  be  sustained? 

Those  of  you  who  find  that  said  ar- 
ticle should  be  sustained  will  answer 
“aye”  as  your  names  are  called; 
those  who  do  not  so  find  will  answer 
“no.”  The  Secretary  will  call  the 
roll. 

(The  Secretary  thereupon  called 
the  roll,  the  vote  being  as  follows, 
to  wit) : 


Yeas — 27. 


Senator  Hudspeth:  Mr.  President, 
Article  12,  it  occurs  to  me,  is  the 
exact  charge  that  is  embraced  in 
Article  1.  Isn’t  that  a fact?  I ask 
if  Article  12  is  not  the  same  charge, 
virtually  the  same  matter,  embraced 
in  Article  1.  If  so,  I want  to  be 
recorded  as  present  and  not  voting. 

Senator  Bee:  Will  the  Senator 
yield? 


Alderdice.  Floyd. 

Bailey.  Gibson. 

Bee.  Harley. 

Buchanan  of  Bell.  Henderson. 
Buchanan  of  ScurryHopkins. 

Caldwell.  Hudspeth. 

Collins.  Johnson  of  Hall. 

Dayton.  Johnston  of  Harris. 

Dean.  Lattimore. 

Decherd.  McCollum. 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


904 


McNealus. 

Page. 

Robbins. 

Smith. 


Strickland. 

Suiter. 

Westbrook. 


Nays — 4. 


Clark.  Parr. 

Hall.  Woodward. 


Senator  Hudspeth:  I desire  to 
vote  to  sustain  this  charge. 

( The  Chair:  Senator  Hudspeth 
votes  “aye.” 

Senator  Dayton:  Mr.  President, 
after  reading  it,  I am  mistaken.  I 
vote  “aye.” 

The  Chair:  Senator  Dayton  votes 
“aye.”  There  being  27  ayes  and  4 
noes,  Article  12  is  sustained. 

Reasons  for  Vote. 


(The  following  written  reasons 
were  sent  up  by  members  of  the 
Court: ) 

I vote  “aye”  on  Article  12  because 
the  evidence  develops  that  the 
$5600  referred  to  in  Article  1 taken 
from  the  Canyon  City  Fund,  was  re* 
placed  in  part  by  money  belonging 
to  the  Adjutant  General  Fund,  and 
therefore  the  said  Adjutant  Gen-r 
eral’s  Fund  was  diverted  in  violation 
of  law. 

BEE. 


I vote  “no”  on  Article  12  of  the  im- 
peachment charges  preferred  against 
Governor  James  E.  Fergu$on,  for  the 
reason  that  the  sum  mentioned  in 
this  article  being  closely  connected 
with  the  facts  concerning  the  first 
article  of  impeachment,  and  because 
the  facts  showing  that  the  Governor 
has  wholly  and  entirely  settled  with 
Acting  Governor  Hobby  for  every 
cent  ever  turned  over  to  him  by 
the  State,  and  that  he  never  know- 
ingly used  a cent  of  the  State’s 
money;  that  he  scrupulously  spent 
every  cent  of  the  State’s  funds 
turned  over  to  him  in  an  economical 
business-like  manner  and  way  for 
the  purposes  for  which  it  was  intend- 
ed. This  charge  is  not  in  any  way  or 
sense  sustained  by  the  proof. 

CLARK. 


gation  of  Governor  James  E.  Fergu- 
son, he  was  specifically  charged  with 
the  misapplication  of  moneys  of  the 
State  of  Texas  in  the  purchase  of 
groceries,  feed,  automobile  tires,  gas- 
oline, etc.  The  committee  appoint- 
ed by  the  House  of  Representatives 
found  that  he  did  so  misapply  several 
thousand  dollars  and  converted  same 
to  his  own  use  in  the  purchase  of  the 
items  above  enumerated.  That  be- 
fore said  committee  Governor  Fergu- 
son testified  under  oath  that  if  the 
case  of  Middleton  vs.  Terrell,  Comp- 
troller, should  be  decided  by  the  Su- 
preme Court  against  him  that  he 
would  refund  to  the  State  of  Texas 
such  amounts  misappropriated  by 
him  in  accordance  with  said  decision. 
The  Supreme  Court  long  ago  refused; 
an  application  for  writ  of  error  and 
overruled  a motion  for  rehearing, 
thus  deciding  against  him,  but  James 
E.  Ferguson  is  still  indebted  under 
said  decision  to  the  State  of  Texas 
for  groceries,  feed,  automobile  tires, 
gasoline,  etc.,  which  were  for  his  pri- 
vate use  but  which  were  paid  with 
State  funds,  and  he  has  failed  to  pay 
same  in  acordance  with  his  oath  be- 
fore said  Committee  of  the  House  of 
Representatives.  The  report  of  the 
House  Investigating  Committee  stat- 
ed that  the  charge  of  misapplication 
of  funds  should  not  justify  the  Ser- 
ous penalty  of  impeachment,  inas- 
much as  Governor  Ferguson  had  tes- 
tified that  he  would  promptly  pay 
said  amounts  to  the  State,  and  that 
in  the  judgment  of  the  committee 
this  agreement  to  repay  should  be 
considered  in  connection  with  the 
good  faith  of  the  Governor.  That 
the  said  James  E.  Ferguson  was 
guilty  of  misapplication  of  the  ap- 
propriation made  by  the  Legislature 
for  fuel,  lights,  ice  and  incidentals, 
in  that  he  used  same  in  the  purchase 
of  groceries,  feed,  automobile  tires, 
gasoline,  etc.,  for  his  private  use,  and 
that  his  refusal  to  repay  said  funds 
constitute  a continued  misapplication 
of  the  public  funds  of  Texas.” 

The  Chair:  Senators,  the  ques- 
tion is:  Shall  Article  13  be  sus- 
tained? Those  of  you  who  believe 
that  said  article  should  be  sustained 
will  answer  “aye”  as  your  names  are 


The  Chair:  The  Secretary  will, 
read  Article  13. 

The  Secretary  (reading):  “Arti- 
cle 13.  That  at  the  former  investi-- 


called;  those  of  you  who  do  not  so 
believe  will  answer  “no.”  The  Sec- 
retary will  call  the  roll. 

(The  Secretary  thereupon  called 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


905 


the  roll,  the  vote  being  as  follows  to 
wit: ) - 

Yeas — 15. 

Buchanan  of  Bell.  Lattimore. 
Buchanan  of  Scurry.  McNealus. 

Caldwell.  Robbins. 

Dean.  Smith. 

Decherd.  Strickland. 

Floyd.  Suiter. 

Johnson  of  Hall.  Westbrook. 
Johnston  of  Harris. 


without  proof  and  can  not  be  sus- 
tained. 

CLARK. 

( 

Mr.  President,  the  facts  sustain 
the  charge,  but  there  are  some  ex- 
tenuating circumstances  in  this  case. 
The  Legislature  made  the  appropria- 
tion, and  for  that  reason  I do  not  be- 
lieve it  would  be  impeachable,  and 
vote  “no.” 

COLLINS. 


Nays — 16. 


Alderdice. 

Bailey. 

Bee. 

Clark. 

Collins. 

Dayton. 

Gibson. 

Hall. 


Harley. 

Henderson. 

Hopkins. 

Hudspeth. 

McCollum. 

Page. 

Parr. 

Woodward. 


Reasons  for  Vote. 

(The  following  written  reasons 
were  sent  up  by  members  of  the 
Court: ) 

I vote  “no”  on  Article  13  while  I 
believe  the  Governor  ought  not  to 
Tiave  used  the  money  appropriated 
by  the  Legislature  for  the  purchase 
of  groceries  and  automobile  acces- 
sories, etc.,  yet  the  Legislature  had 
appropriated  the  money  and  his  mis- 
conduct in  my  judgment  is  not  suffi- 
ciently grave  to  constitute  an  im- 
peachable offence. 

BEE. 


I vote  “no”  on  Article  13  of  the  im- 
peachment charges  preferred  against 
Governor  James  E.  Ferguson,  for  the 
reason  that  the  Legislature  of  Texas, 
by  its  solemn  Act  appropriating  the 
sum  of  money  named  to  pay  for  just 
such  articles  and  items  as  were  ex- 
pended under  it,  and  knowing  at  the 
time  the  appropriation  was  made  the 
purposes  for  Which  it  would  be  spent. 
Notwithstanding  this,  and  notwith- 
standing the  fact  that  the  Legislature 
authorized  in  the  first  instance,  the 
expediture  of  these  sums,  the  Gov- 
ernor has  paid  back  every  cent 
claimed  and  still  more,  even  going 
to  the  extent  of  paying  for  the  work- 
men about  the  mansion  and  grounds, 
a thing  never  before  done,  so  far  as 
1 know,  by  any  Governor  in  the  his- 
tory of  this  State.  This  charge  is 


Mr.  President,  I desire  to  say  that 
I will  have  to  vote  “no”  on  this,  for 
the  reasons  stated  by  the  Senator 
from  Jefferson,  although  there  is  one 
circumstance  in  the  investigation  in 
the  House  which  makes  it  culpable 
in  my  mind. 

GIBSON. 

Mr.  President,  I think  there  is 
evidence  of  culpability,  but  on  ac- 
count of  the  fact  that  the  Legisla- 
ture made  are  appropriation  there 
are  many  extenuating  circumstances. 

I have  serious  doubt  as  to  the  crim- 
inal intent  and  vote  “no.” 

PAGE. 

Senator  Hudspeth:  Mr.  President, 
after  reading  the  demurrers  it  oc- 
curs to  me  that  it  was  by  authority 
of  law;  the  appropriation  was  passed 
by  the  Legislature  and  I vote  “no.” 

The  Chair:  There  being  15  “ayes” 
and  16  “noes,”  Article  13  is  not  sus- 
tained. 

The  Chair:  The  Secretary  will 
read  Article  14.  t 

The  Secretary  (reading):  “Arti- 
cle 14.  That  by  an  express  provi- 
sion of  the  Constitution  and  his  oath 
of  office  the  Governor  is  bound  to 
enforce  all  laws  of  the  State  of  Tex- 
as. The  laws  of  Texas  during  the 
period  of  his  administration  express-* 
ly  forbade  State  banks  to  lend  money 
in  excess  of  30  per  cent  of  its  capital 
stock.  This  was  known  to  the  Gov- 
ernor, yet  in  violation  of  this  provi- 
sion of  the  law  he  induced  the  officers 
of  the  Temple  State  Bank  to  lend  to 
him,  James  E.  Ferguson,  an  amount 
far  in  excess  of  that  authorized  by 
law,  which  loans  were  made  during 
the  years  1916  and  1917.” 

The  Chair:  Senators,  the  ques- 
tion is:  Shall  Article  14  be  sus- 
tained? Those  of  you  who  find  that 
said  article  should  be  sustained  will 


906 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


answer  “aye’*  as  your  names  are 


called;  those 

who  do  not  so  find  will 

answer  “no.’ 
call  the  roll. 

’’  The  Secretary  will 

(The  Secretary  thereupon  called 
the  roll,  the  vote  being  as  follows,  to 

wit: ) 

Yeas — 26. 

j 

AlderdiCe. 

Henderson. 

Bailey. 

Hopkins. 

Bee. 

Johnson  of  Hall. 

Buchanan  of 

Bell.  Johnston  of  Harris. 

Buchanan  of  Scurry.  Lattimore. 

Caldwell. 

McCollum. 

Collins. 

McNealus. 

Dayton. 

Page. 

Dean. 

Robbins. 

Decherd. 

Smith. 

Floyd. 

Strickland. 

Gibson. 

Suiter. 

Harley. 

Westbrook. 

Nays — 5. 

Clark. 

Parr. 

Hall. 

Hudspeth 

Woodward. 

The  Chair:  There  being  twenty-six 
ayes  and  five  noes,  Article  14  is 
sustained. 

Reasons  for  Vote. 

(The  following  written  reasons 
were  sent  up  by  members  of  the 
Court: ) 

I vote  “Aye”  on  Article  14  be- 
cause the  laws  of  Texas  expressly 
forbid  the  State  banks  to  lend 
money  in  excess  of  thirty  per  cent 
of  its  capital  stock.  The  Governor 
of  Texas  should  of  all  men  obey 
the  law,  and  the  evidence  shows 
that  he  induced  the  Temple  State 
Bank  which  he  dominated  to  loan 
him  amounts  far  in  excess  of  the 
amounts  authorized  by  law. 

BEE. 

I vote  “no”  on  Article  14  of  the 
impeachment  charges  preferred 
against  Governor  James  E.  Ferguson, 
for  the  reason  that  at  the  time  the 
Governor  borrowed  money  from  the 
Temple  State  Bank  an  express  agree- 
ment and  understanding  was  entered 
into  between  him  and  the  governing 
and  managing  officers  of  said  bank, 
to  the  effect  that  such  money  was  to 
be  used  in  the  purchase  of  cattle 


and  feed  to  sustain  them,  and  that 
at  any  time  the  bank  desired  its 
money,  it  should  have  the  option  and 
right  to  demand  delivery  to  it  of  all 
of  the  cattle  in  the  possession  of  the 
said  James  E.  Ferguson  or  that  they 
be  speedily  turned  into  cash  to  pay 
off  the  indebtedness  of  the  Governor 
to  the  bank;  that  the  cattle  were  far 
in  excess  of  the  amount  so  advanced” 
to  buy  them  and  to  buy  feed  for  then* 
and  that,  therefore,  property  of  act- 
ual value  existed  more  than  sufficient 
to  cover  the  full  amount  of  said  loan, 
and  that  such  transactions  were  of 
the  same  character  and  kind  as  those 
in  the  handling  of  immense  quanti- 
ties of  cotton  in  all  parts  of  this 
State  in  the  fall  of  each  year,  and  in 
the  handling  of  large  quantities  of 
grain  and  other  agricultural  products 
during  practically  all  seasons  of  the 
year  in  this  State;  that  such  transac- 
tions are  permitted  by  the  banking 
laws  of  this  State,  and  are  not  in 
violation  of  the  spirit  of  the  banking 
’aws.  This  charge  is  not  sustained 
'7  the  proof. 

CLARK. 

The  Chair:  The  Secretary  will 
read  Article  15.  Let’s  have  order. 

The  Secretary  (Reading) : “Article 
15.  The  people  of  this  State  have 
adopted  an  organic  law,  the  Constitu- 
tion of  Texas,  equally  binding  upon 
its  highest  officials  and  its  humblest 
citizens.  Article  7 of  that  Constitu- 
tion provides  for  the  maintenance  and 
support  of  the  University  of  Texas. 
That  provision  is  a direction  given  by 
the  people  themselves  in  their  most 
solemn  manner  to  those  who  repre- 
sent them  in  office  as  to  their  duties. 

“The  Governor  has  vetoed  or  at- 
tempted to  veto  the  entire  appropria- 
tion for  the  University  of  Texas  ex- 
cept the  salary  for  one  officer,  thus,  in 
effect,  seeking  to  set  aside  that  pro- 
vision of  the  organic  law  requiring  the 
support  and  maintenance  of  that  in- 
stitution, and  to  set  aside  the  express 
will  and  judgment  of  the  people  of 
Texas.  Though  he  had  the  legal  pow- 
er to  veto,  it  was  his  sworn  constitu- 
tional duty  to  again  submit  the  ques- 
tion to  the  Legislature,  which  he  has 
declared  to  the  people  of  Texas  that 
he  would  not  do  and  it  was  only  when 
a session  had  been  called  for  his  im- 
peachment and  its  was  apparent  that 
a quorum  of  the  House  would  attend 
to  consider  that  question,  and  as  a last 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


907 


extremity,  he  consented  to  call  a ses- 
sion of  the  Legislature  and  submitted 
the  question  of  appropriations  for  the 
University  of  Texas.” 

The  Chair:  Senators,  the  question 
is:  Shall  Article  15  he  sustained? 

Those  of  you  who  find  that  said  Ar- 
ticle should  be  sustained  will  answer 
“aye”  as  your  names  are  called;  those 
who  do  not  so  find  will  answer  “no.” 
The  Secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

(The  Secretary  thereupon  called 
the  roll,  the  vote  being  as  follows,  to 
wit: ) 


Yeas — 6. 


Buchanan  of  Scurry.  Johnson  of  Hall. 
Caldwell.  Lattimore. 

Decherd.  Strickland. 

Nays — 24. 


Alderdice. 

Bailey. 

Bee. 

Clark. 

Collins. 

Dayton. 

Dean. 

Floyd. 

Gibson. 

Hall. 

Harley. 

Henderson. 


Hopkins. 

Hudspeth. 

Johnston  of 

McCollum. 

McNealus. 

Parr. 

Page. 

Robbins. 

Smith. 

Suiter. 

Westbrook. 

Woodward. 


Harris. 


Present — Not  Voting. 


tion  of  the  Governor  in  vetoing 
this  appropriation. 

BEE. 

I vote  “no”  on  Article  15  of  the 
impeachment  charges  preferred 
against  Governor  James  E.  Ferguson,, 
for  the  reason  that  the  Governor  did 
not  violate  his  oath  of  office  or  seek 
to  strike  down  or  destroy  any  con- 
stitutional provision  in  this  State,  in 
vetoing  the  University  appropriation 
bill  enacted  by  the  Thirty-fifth  Leg-* 
islature.  Sections  10  and  11,  of  Ar- 
ticle 7 of  the  Constitution  of  Texas, 
in  unmistakable  language,  provides 
how 'the  funds  for  the  support  and 
maintenance  of  the  University  shall) 
be  drived.  There  can  be  no  question 
about  the  meaning  of  these  sections. 
That  the  appropriation  bill,  in 
amount,  was  excessive  I think  there 
can  be  no  dispute.  It  is  a remark- 
able fact  that  the  appropriation  for 
stenographers  at  the  University  now 
is  practically  one-third  of  the  appro- 
priation twenty  years  ago.  The 
growth  of  the  attendance  of  students 
and  the  activities  of  the  University 
have  in  no  sense  kept  pace  with  the 
expenditure  of  the  peoples’  money  on 
that  institution.  In  vetoing  that  bill 
the  Governor  was  plainly  acting  in 
the  exercise  of  a constitutional  dis- 
cretion vested  in  him  by  that  instru- 
ment, and  can  not  be  impeached  for 
his  acts  done  in  these  premises. 


Buchanan  of  Bell. 


CLARK. 


The  Chair:  There  being  six  ayes 
and  twenty-four  noes,  one  present  and 
not  voting — does  the  /Senator  from 
Bell  desire  to  vote? 

Senator  Buchanan  of  Bell:  No,  sir. 

The  Chair:  There  being  six  ayes 
and  twenty-four  noes  and  one  not  vot- 
ing, the  Article  is  not  sustained. 

Reason  for  Vote. 

(The  following  written  reasons 
were  sent  up  by  members  of  the 
Court: ) 

I vote  “No”  on  Article  15  be- 
cause the  Constitution  gives  the 
Governor  the  right  of  veto,  and 
for  a Legislature  to  make  impeach- 
able the  exercise  of  that  right 
would  establish  a precedent  which 
would  plague  people  of  this  State 
hereafter  if  differences  arose  be- 
tween the  Legislature  and  the  Gov- 
ernor. I utterly  disapprove  the  ac- 


I  want  to  incorporate  in  the  Jour- 
nal, as  a matter  of  record,  my  rea- 
sons for  voting  against  the  above 
Article  of  Impeachment.  This  reason- 
being  that  I do  not  believe  the  of- 
fense complained  of  would  justify 
the  severe  punishment  of  removal 
from  office,  although  I feel  that  the 
Governor  has  misused  the  authority 
vested  in  him  and  has  committed  a 
gross  error,  it  hardly  justifies  pun- 
ishment above  suggested. 

ROBBINS. 

Mr.  President,  the  Governor  has  a 
right  to  veto  any  measure  passed  by 
the  Legislature.  Being  in  doubt  as  to 
what  his  course  ultimately  would  have 
been  as  to  this  subject,  I vote  “no”  on 
this  charge. 

ALDERDICE. 

Mr.  President,  the  Governor  having 
called  the  Legislature  to  make  an  ap~ 


908 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


propriation  after  having  vetoed  the 
first  appropriation,  I vote  “no”  on  this 
Article. 

McNEALUS. 


Senator  Floyd:  Mr.  President,  I 
will  send  up  my  reasons. 

The  Chair:  Send  them  up. 

The  Chair:  The  Secretary  will 
read  Article  16. 


Mr.  President,  I think  the  organic 
law  of  this  State  gives  the  Governor 
the  right  to  veto  any  measure.  I think 
his  discretion  was  abused,  but  I think 
it  would  be  a dangerous  thing  to  im- 
peach a man  for  doing  a thing  the 
Constitution  gives  him  a right  to  do. 
Therefore,  I vote  “no.” 

PAGE. 


I vote  “no”  on  this  Article  because 
the  Constitution  is  not  clear  on  this 

P0int'  FLOYD. 

I vote  “no”  on  Article  15,  with  this 
explanation:  That  while  the  vetoing 

of  the  appropriation  for  the  Univer- 
sity was  unsound  in  policy  and  un- 
warranted in  fact,  yet  the  constitu-^ 
tional  right  of  veto  is  of  such  -high 
importance  that  any  effort  to  abridge 
or  curtail  that  right  would  set  a pre- 
cedent that  would  be  dangerous,  and 
would  probably  lead  to  graver  dang- 
ers than  the  abuse  of  that  right. 

HARLEY. 

Reasons  for  voting  “no”  on  Article 
15  of  count  in  impeachment  articles: 
I vote  “no”  on  said  article  for  the 
reason  that  I believe  that  under  the 
Constitution  of  this  State  the  Gover- 
nor  has  the  right  to  veto  any  bill, 
while  I think  that  the  right  was  gross- 
ly abused  in  this  instance  and  I urged 
the  Governor  not  to  make  this  fa.al 
error  before  he  did  so.  However,  1 
cannot  vote  to  convict  a man  for 
exercising  his  constitutional  right  of 

Vet0‘  HUDSPETH. 

The  Constitution  of  Texas  gives  the 
Governor  of  this  State  the  veto  pow- 
er. This  veto  might  not  have  been 
used  discretely,  but  since  in  the  Gover- 
nor’s call  of  the  Second  Called  Session 
of  the  Thirty-fifth  Legislature  he  an- 
nounced his  intention  to  submit  as 
subject  matter  the  question  of  an  ap- 
propriation for  the  support  and  main- 
tenance of  the  State  University,  and 
since  this  has  been  done,  and  the  orig- 
inal appropriation  measure  enacted  in- 
to  a law,  I vote  “no.”  gMITH. 


The  Secretary  (Reading) : “Article 
16.  Section  30a  of  Article  16  of  the 
Constitution  of  Texas  provides  for  a 
Board  of  Regents  for  the  University 
of  Texas,  who  shall  hold  office  for  six 
years,  their  terms  expiring  one-third 
every  two  years.  The  purpose  of  the 
people  of  Texas  in  the  adoption  of 
this  provision  was  to  take  the  Univer- 
sity of  Texas  and  all  other  such  State 
institutions  from  the  control  of  poli- 
tics, and  to  keep  the  different  boards 
from  being  under  the  control  and 
domination  of  whomever  might  hap- 
pen to  be  Governor.  By  Articles  2639 
and  2640  of  the  Revised  Civil  Statutes 
of  1911  the  Board  of  Regents  are 
given  the  management  of  the  affairs 
of  the  University  of  Texas  with  the 
discretion  to  remove  members  of  the 
faculty  when  in  their  judgment  It  fs 
deemed  best.  That  it  is  the  duty  of 
the  Governor,  or  any  private  citizen, 
to  call  attention  of  the  Board  of  Re- 
gents to  any  mismanagement  or  im- 
proper practices  at  the  University  or 
any  other  State  institutions  is  readily 
conceded.  The  people  themselves  have 
given  to  the  Board  of  Regents  by  con- 
stitutional enactment,  which  has  been 
confirmed  by  statutory  law,  tne  sole 
right  to  judge  of  the  truth  of  the 
charges  and  the  punishment  to  be  in- 
flicted against  members  of  the  faculty. 
The  Board  of  Regents  in  their  sphere 
are  just  as  supreme  as  the  Governor 
is  in  his,  each  having  both  constitu- 
tional and  statutory  duties  to  perform, 
and  each  being  answerable  to  the  peo- 
ple of  Texas.  The  Governor  of  Texas 
not  only  filed  charges  against  certain 
members  of  the  faculty,  as  he  had  a 
right  to  do,  but  after  the  members 
were  exonerated  by  the  Board  of  Re- 
gents he  has  sought  to  have  the  mem- 
bers of  the  faculty  expelled  from  that 
institution  because  he  desired  it.  He 
has  thus  sought  to  set  aside  the  Con- 
stitution and  law  giving  to  the  Board 
of  Regents  the  discretion  in  matters 
of  this  kind  and  assert  instead  of  their 
legal  judgment  his  own  autocratic 
will.” 

The  Chair:  Senators,  the  question 
is:  Shall  Article  16  be  sustained? 

Those  who  find  that  said  Article 
should  be  sustained  will  answer  “aye” 
as  your  names  are  called;  those  who 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


909 


do  not  so  find  will  answer  “no.”  The 
Secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

(The  Secretary  thereupon  called  the 
roll,  the  vote  being  as  follows,  to  wit: ) 

Yeas — 22. 

Alderdice.  Henderson. 

Buchanan  of  Bell.  Johnson  of  Hall. 
Buchanan  of  Scurry.  Johnston  of  Harris. 


Caldwell. 

Lattimore. 

Collins. 

McNealus. 

Dayton. 

Page. 

Dean. 

Robbins. 

Decherd. 

Smith. 

Floyd. 

Strickland. 

Gibson. 

Suiter. 

Harley. 

Westbrook. 

Nays — 9. 

Bailey. 

r 

Hudspeth. 

Bee. 

McCollum. 

Clark. 

Parr. 

Hall. 

Woodward. 

Hopkins. 

The  Chair:  There  being  twenty- 
two  ayes  and  nine  noes,  Article  16 
is  sustained. 

Reasons  for  Vote. 

(The  following  written  reasons  were 
sent  up  by  members  of  the  Court:) 

I vote  “No”  on  Article  16  because 
while  I believe  the  Governor  was, 
wrong  in  interfering  with  the  man- 
agement of  the  University  and  such 
interference  should  be  condemned  I 
do  not  consider  it  an  impeachable 
offense. 

BEE. 

I vote  “no”  on  Article  16  of  the  im- 
peachment charges  preferred  against 
Governor  James  E.  Ferguson,  for  the 
reason  that  the  testimony  does  not 
disclose  that  the  Governor  sought  to 
remove  any  of  the  University  Regents 
save  and  except  Dr.  S.  J.  Jones.  He 
was  informed,  in  an  apparently  re- 
liable manner,  at  least  in  such  a way 
that  no  one  has  appeared  to  contra- 
dict it,  that  Dr.  Jones  was  no  longer 
a resident  of  the  State  of  Texas,  but 
was  living  in  the  State  of  Virginia, 
and  that  he  had  wholly  failed  to  at- 
tend the  meetings  of  the  Board  of 
Regents.  Under  the  provisions  of 
our  law  under  such  circumstances 
the  Governor  had  the  right  to  remove 
such  regent.  The  evidence  does  not 
show  that  he  removed  any  other  Re- 


gent, and  this  article  is  not  sustained 
by  the  proof. 

The  testimony  of  Mr.  Brents,  of 
Sherman,  and  Mr.  Butler,  of  Clifton 
— Mr.  Brents  at  present  a member 
of  the  Board  of  Regents,  and  Mr. 
Butler  formerly  a member  of  such 
Board — was  that  before  they  were 
appointed  as  members  of  the  Board 
of  Regents  of  the  State  University, 
they  fully  acquainted  the  Governor 
with  the  fact  that  they  were  warm 
personal  friends  of  Dr.  Vinson’s; 
that  they  desired  him  to  succeed  in 
the  presidency  of  the  University;  that 
they  desired  to  bring  about  an  amic- 
able understanding  between  Dr.  Vin- 
son and  the  Governor;  that  the  Gov- 
ernor fully  understood  the  closeness 
of  their  relations  to  Dr.  Vinson  and 
knowing  this,  he  appointed  them. 

It  has  not  been  proven,  as  set  out 
in  this  article,  that  the  Governor  in 
suggesting  the  removal  of  certain 
members  of  the  faculty  was  seeking 
to  assert  his  own  autocratic  will  in- 
stead of  the  legal  judgment  of  the 
Board  of  Regents,  but  that  he  was 
in  the  exercise  of  a duty  imposed 
upon  him  by  Article  24,  of  Section 
4 of  the  Constitution  of  this  State, 
which  makes  it  his  sworn  and  bound- 
en  duty  to  inquire  into  the  manage- 
ment of  each  and  every  State  institu- 
tion and  concern;  to  inquire  into  the 
expenditure  of  the  State’s  money.  In 
this  inquiry  the  Governor  discovered 
that  Dr.  A.  Caswell  Ellis  was  en- 
gaged in  making  large  sums  of  money 
in  supervising  the  erection  and  con- 
struction of  certain  portions  of  pub- 
lic school  buildings  in  this  State.  It 
is  the  announced  and  pronounced 
purposes  of  the  University  of  Texas 
to  carry  its  benefits  and  advantages 
to  the  people.  If  Dr.  Ellis  is  paid  a 
salary  of  $3250  per  year,  as  the  testi- 
money  shows  that  he  is,  and  his  ex- 
penses in  addition  thereto  in  travel- 
ing over  the  State,  then  the  carry- 
ing of  the  benefits  of  the  University 
of  Texas  to  the  people  ought  to  be, 
accomplished  without  further  cost 
out  of  their  taxes.  However,  the 
facts  disclose  that  Dr.  Ellis  is  in 
the  habit  of  charging  one-half  of  one 
per  cent  of  the  entire  cost  of  school 
buildings  in  this  State  in  order  to 
advise  the  local  authorities  as  to  the 
sanitary  construction  of  same.  In 
addition  to  this  the  evidence  discloses 
that  Dr.  Ellis  was  engaged  in  writ- 
ing a book,  or  had  written  a book. 


910 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


and  at  a time  just  in  advance  of  the 
State  Textbook  selection,  was  quite 
active  in  securing  endorsements  from 
the  people  among  whom  he  had  been 
doing  this  private  work,  so  that  he 
might  get,  if  possible,  his  book  adopt- 
ted  by  the  State  Textbook  Board. 

It  has  never  been  disputed  that 
Professor  James  went  to  Fort  Worth 
to  deliver  a lecture  and  took  his  wife 
along;  that  he  rendered  a bill  for 
the  expenses  of  himself  and  wife  on 
that  trip;  that  when  the  auditor  re- 
fused to  approve  the  bill  Dr.  Battle 
ordered  it  changed  to  read  “Doctor 
James  and  assistant.”  Neither  has 
it  been  disputed  that  Dr.  Battle  mis- 
led the  Legislature  and  the  Governor 
as  to  the  itemization  of  the  Univer- 
sity appropriation  bill  passed  by  the 
Thirty-fourth  Legislature,  and  that 
after  promising  solemnly  to  see  that 
the  itemization  demanded  by  the 
State  Democratic  Convention  be  rig- 
idly carried  out,  he  set  about  to  dis- 
cover ways  and  means  to  avoid  it 
and  to  destroy  the  itemization  made 
by  the  Legislature.  No  justification 
has  been  offered  for  this  conduct.  No 
justification  has  been  offered,  nor 
any  proof  submitted,  condoning  the 
offense  of  charging  the  young  men 
and  young  women  who  attended  the 
University  exorbitant  prices  for  the 
books  sold  through  the  Co-operative 
Association  at  the  University,  which 
has  accumulated  such  a large  sum  of 
money  that  it  has  built  a large  and 
commodious  brick  building  in  which 
to  carry  on  its  further  activities.  No 
denial  has  been  made  that  the  books 
there  sold  are  sold  at  a very  large 
profit  to  the  men  who  wrote  them, 
and  these  books  in  many  instances 
being  written  by  the  professors  of 
the  University  and  out  of  the  writing 
of  which  they  are  continuously  and 
constantly  deriving  a very  large 
profit. 

The  only  witness  put  on  the  stand 
by  the  House  Managers,  as  to  any  of 
these  matters,  was  Dr.  Vinson,  presi- 
dent of  the  University.  He  frankly 
admitted  on  the  stand  that  he  knew 
nothing  about  any  of  these  practices 
save  and  except  such  as  he  had  dis- 
covered by  talking  with  other  people;, 
that  as  a personal  matter  he  knew 
nothing  about  it.  Neither  Dr.  A. 
Caswell  Ellis,  Professor  James,  Dr. 
Mather,  Dr.  W.  H.  Mayes,  the  head 
of  the  School  of  Journalism,  nor  any 
of  the  others  about  whom  sugges- 


tions were  made  by  the  Governor, 
ever  apeared  on  the  witness  stand 
or  elsewhere  to  deny  a single  charge 
made  against  them.  This  is  more 
than  significant,  it  in  effect  becomes 
a confession  of  guilt  and  an  admis- 
sion of  the  truth  of  the  charges  made 
against  them.  There  has  been  no- 
evidence  proving  this  charge. 

CLARK. 

Mr.  President,  believing  that  the 
Governor  transcended  his  constitu- 
tional and  statutory  authority  in  in- 
termeddling with  the  Board  of  Re- 
gents, I1  vote  “aye.” 

COLLINS. 

The  Chair:  The  Secretary  will 
read  Article  17.  Mr.  Sergeant-at-Arms, 
let’s  have  order,  please. 

The  Secretary  (Reading) : “Ar- 

ticle 17.  Article  6027  of  the  Revised 
Civil  Statutes  of  1911  provides  for  the 
removal  of  members  of  the  Board  of 
Regents  (among  other  officials)  for 
‘good  and  sufficient  cause.’  The  Gov- 
ernor has  sought  to  remove  members 
of  the  Board  of  Regents  without  such 
cause,  has  demanded  resignations  of 
others  without  reason,  simply  and 
only  because  he  could  not  dictate  to 
them  as  to  how  they  should  cast  their 
votes  in  reference  to  matters  arising 
before  them.  Such  conduct  was  a clear 
violation  of  the  law,  and  would  serve 
to  make  inoperative  the  provision  of 
the  Constitution  providing  for  six- 
year  terms  of  office.” 

The  Chair:  Senators,  the  question* 
is?  Shall  Article  17  be  sustained 
Those  who  find  that  said  Article  should 
be  sustained  will  answer  “aye”  as 
your  names  are  called;  those  Vho  fail 
to  so  find  will  answer  “no.”  The  Sec- 
retary will  call  the  roll. 

(The  Secretary  thereupon  called  the 
roll,  the  vote  being  as  follows,  to  wit: ) 


Yeas — 22. 


Alderdice. 

Bee. 

Buchanan  of  Bell. 
Buchanan  of  Scurry 
Caldwell. 

Collins. 

Dayton. 

Dean. 

Decherd. 

Floyd. 

Gibson. 


Henderson. 
Johnson  of  Hall. 
Johnston  of  Harris. 
.Lattimore. 
McNealus. 

Page. 

Robbins. 

Smith. 

Strickland. 

Suiter. 

Westbrook. 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


911 


Nays — 8. 

Bailey.  Hudspeth. 

Clark.  McCollum. 

Hall.  Parr. 

Hopkins.  Woodward. 

Present — Not  Voting. 

Harley. 

Reason  for  Vote. 

(The  following  written  reasons 
were  sent  up  by  members  of  the 
Court: ) 

I vote  “Aye”  on  Article  17  be- 
cause I do  not  believe  in  the  first 
place  the  Governor  has  any  power 
to  remove  members  of  the  Board  of 
Regents  of  the  University  and  be- 
cause I believe  that  he  wrongfully 
exercised  the  power  of  removal  and 
further  appointed  members  of  the 
Board  of  Regents  for  the  purpose  of 
placing  the  Board  of  Regents  un- 
der his  control  in  violation  of  the 
Constitution  and  the  laws.  The 
University  of  Texas  is  the  just  pride 
of  the  people  of  this  State  and  its 
welfare  and  prosperity  carries  edu- 
cation to  the  young  men  and  young 
women  of  this  State  who  are  not 
able  to  attend  Eastern  colleges. 
The  University  is  the  peer  of  any 
educational  institution  in  the  United 
States  and  its  Board  of  Regents 
should  be  left  uninfluenced  by  any 
consideration  other  than  its  suc- 
cess. 

BEE. 

I vote  “no”  on  Article  17  of  the 
articles  of  impeachment  preferred 
against  the  Governor,  for  the  same 
reasons  as  set  out  with  reference  to 
Article  16. 

CLARK. 

Mr.  President,  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral of  this  State  has  held  that  tne 
power  of  removal  -was  not  vested  in 
the  Governor  in  this  instance,  and  I 
vote  “aye.” 

DAYTON. 

Mr.  President,  there  being  a plain 
statute  which  gives  the  Governor  of 
the  State  the  right  to  remove  officers, 
I vote  “no.” 

HUDSPETH. 

Mr.  President,  there  being  a statute 
which  gives  the  Governor  of  the  State 


for  good  and  sufficient  cause  power  to 
remove  officers,  in  my  opinion,  under 
that  statute,  he  had  a right  to  remove 
them  for  sufficient  cause,  but  do  not 
believe  the  record  shows  that  there 
was  cause,  and  therefore  I vote  “aye.” 

PAGE. 

The  Chair:  The  Senator  from 
Wharton  votes  “no.”  There  being 
twenty-two  ayes  and  eight  noes,  and 
one  present  and  not  voting,  Article 
17  is  sustained. 

The  Chair:  The  Secretary  will 
read  Article  18. 

The  Secretary  (Reading) : “Article 
18.  The  Governor  of  Texas  has  in 
public  speech  and  published  writing 
declared  to  the  people  of  Texas  that 
the  faculty  of  the  University  are  graft- 
ers and  corruptionists,  that  they  are 
liars,  and  that  they  are  disloyal  to 
their  government.  ’ These  are  most 
serious  charges.  He  made  them  first 
before  the  Legislature  convened  m 
January,  1917.  The  members  of  the 
faculty,  in  justice  to  themselves,  to 
the  institution  which  they  served,  and 
to  the  people  of  Texas,  whose  money 
supported  and  maintained  that  insti- 
tution, applied  to  the  Senate  of  Texas 
for  a full  and  fair  investigation. 
They  soughjt  in  every  way  possible 
that  the  people  of  Texas  might  know 
every  fact  and  circumstance  connected 
with  the  management  of  the  Univer- 
sity of  Texas.  James  E.  Ferguson  op- 
posed that  investigation  and  on  the 
urging  of  his  friends  in  the  Senate  that 
the  controversy  was  ended,  and  that 
the  charges  would  not  be  repeated, 
there  was  adopted  the  Dayton  resolu- 
tion by  the  Senate  of  Texas,  which  was 
for  the  purpose  of  settling  the  con- 
troversy. After  the  Legislature  had 
adjourned  and  when  investigation  was 
no  longer  possible  by  the  representa- 
tives of  the  people,  the  Governor 
again  repeated  the  charges,  becoming 
more  and  more  vehemenent.  If  he 
knew  the  charges  to  be  true,  it  be 
came  his  sworn  duty  to  cause  the  par- 
ties involved  to  be  prosecuted.  If  he 
did  not  know  them  to  be  true  (and  the 
Board  of  Regents,  after  a fair  hearing 
found  that  they  were  not  true),  he  is 
guilty  of  criminal  libel  and  slander 
against  the  fair  name  of  Texas  and 
one  of  its  most  cherished  institutions.” 

The  Chair:  Senators,  the  question 
is  Shall  Article  18  be  sustained? 
Those  who  find  that  said  article  should 
be  sustained  will  answer  “aye”  as 


912 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


your  names  are  called;  those  who  do 
not  so  find,  or  fail  to'  so  find,  will 
answer  “no.”  The  Secretary  will  call 
the  roll. 

(The  Secretary  thereupon  called  the 
roll,  the  vote  being  as  follows,  to  wit: ) 

Yeas — 9. 

Buchanan  of  Scurry.  Johnson  of  Hall. 


Caldwell. 

Lattimore. 

Dean. 

McNealus. 

Decherd. 

Smith. 

Floyd. 

Nays — 20. 

Alderdice. 

Hudspeth. 

Bailey. 

Johnston  of  Harris. 

Bee. 

McCollum. 

Clark. 

Page. 

Collins. 

Parr. 

Gibson. 

Robbins. 

Hall. 

Strickland. 

Harley. 

Suiter. 

Henderson. 

Westbrook. 

Hopkins. 

Woodward. 

Present — Not  Voting. 


Buchanan  of  Bell.Dayton. 

The  Chair:  There  being  9 "ayes,” 
20  "noes,”  two  present  and  not  vot- 
ing, the  article  is  not  sustained. 

Reasons  for  Vote. 


with  the  Governor,  to  make  demands 
concerning  the  University  appropria- 
tion bill,  that  what  is  called  the 
Dayton  Resolution  had  been  fully 
lived  up  to  and  observed  by  the  Gov- 
ernor; that  this  constituted  a new 
offense  and  a subject  not  in  contem- 
plation of  the  Dayton  Resolution, 
and  one  which  was  of  necessity  un- 
known to  the  authors  and  propo- 
nents of  the  Dayton  Resolution.  The 
proof  shows  that  the  president  of  the 
University  permitted  the  students  to 
assemble  to  pass  resolutions  on  the 
date  mentioned.  Dr.  Vinson  stated 
he  did  not  know  that  they  were  go- 
ing to  parade  down  town,  but  that  ifi 
he  had  known  of  it  he  could  not  have 
stopped  it.  But,  it  is  claimed  by 
Counsel  for  the  House  Managers  that 
Dr.  Vinson  did  compel,  in  the  Daily 
Texan,  a newspaper  published  by  the 
students  of  the  University,  an 
apology  and  retraction  of  certain 
insulting  comments  concerning  the 
fact  that  some  of  those  living  in  the 
University  section  had  voted  for  a 
negro  Governor  of  the  State  of  Texas 
at  the  November  election  in  1916  in 
preference  to  Governor  Ferguson. 
It  seems  to  me  that  if  in  the  one  in- 
stance his  power  was  sufficient  to 
compel  a retraction  of  such  a state- 
ment, in  the  other  & ought  to  have 
been  sufficient  to  prevent  a manifes- 
tation so  lawless  in  character  and  so 
needless  as  this  one  was. 


(The  following  written  reasons 
were  sent  up  by  members  of  the 
Courtff ) 

I vote  "No”  on  Article  18.  The 
Governor  is  unjustified  in  either 
public  speech  or  writings  attacking 
the  character  of  men  and  making 
charges  against  them.  I believe  that 
the  personnel  of  the  members  of  the 
University  Faculty  is  as  high  as  that 
of  any  corresponding  institution. 
However,  the  statements  were  made 
in  anger  and  controversy  and  how- 
ever reprehensible  in  my  judgment 
are  not  impeachable. 

BEE. 

I vote  "no”  on  Article  18  of  the 
impeachment  charges  preferred 
against  Jovernor  James  E.  Ferguson, 
for  the  reason  that  the  testimony  of 
the  Governor  on  the  stand  fully  dis- 
closes that  up  to  the  time  of  the  pa- 
rade of  the  students  when  they 
marched  to  the  Capitol  where  the 
Board  of  Regents  were  in  conference 


This  article  is  not  sustained  by  the 
proof. 


CLARK. 


I want  to  incorporate  in  the  Jour- 
nal, as  a matter  of  record,  my  rea- 
sons for  voting  against'  the  above 
Article  of  Impeachment.  This  reason 
being  that  I do  not  believe  the  of- 
fense complained  of  would  justify 
the  severe  punishment  of  removal 
from  office,  although  I feel  that  the 
Governor  has  misused  the  authority 
vested  in  him  and  has  committed  a 
gross  error,  it  hardly  justifies  pun- 
ishment above  suggested. 

ROBBINS. 

Mr.  President,  I regard  the  conduct 
of  the  Governor  as  set  out  in  this  ar- 
ticle as  highly  improper,  but  do  not 
believe  that  the  article  contains  im- 
peachable matter  and  therefore  vote 
“no.” 

ALDERDICE. 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


913 


Mr.  President,  I think  the  facts 
sustain  the  article,  but  I believe  it  is 
demurrable,  and  therefore  I shall 
have  to  vote  “no.” 

Mr.  President,  believing  that  this 
is  all  wrong  on  both  sides,  that  it 
grew  out  of  personal  matters  between 
some  of  the  members  of  the  faculty 
and  the  Governor,  I vote  “no.” 

GIBSON. 


is:  Shall  Article  19  be  sustained? 
Those  of  you  who  find  that  said  ar- 
ticle should  be  sustained  will  answer 
“aye”  as  your  names  are  called; 
those  of  you  who  fail  to  so  find  will 
answer  “no.”  The  Secretary  will 
call  the  roll. 

(The  Secretary  thereupon  called 
the  roll,  the  vote  being  as  follows, 
to  wit:) 


Mr.  President,  believing  that  we 
can  not  and  should  not  impeach  any 
one  for  statements  made  in  a public 
address,  I vote  “no.” 

HUDSPETH. 

Mr.  President,  believing  that, 
granting  all  the  facts  to  be  true, 
they  do  not  constitute  impeachable 
matter,  I vote  to  sustain  the  remur- 
rer.  I think  the  conduct  of  the  Gov- 
ernor under  the  circumstances  was 
improper.  Nevertheless,  he  was  en- 
gaged at  the  time  in  political  debate, 
and  while  I do  not  believe  the  state- 
ments he  made  were  justified  by 
facts,  I vote  “no.” 

PAGE. 

I vote  “no”  on  Charge  18  because 
I don’t  believe  it  is  an  impeachable 
offense,  though  it  is  proven.  I here- 
by sustain  demurrer  to  this  charge. 

STRICKLAND. 


Yeas — 21. 


Bee.  Johnson  of  Hall. 

Buchanan  of  Bell.  Johnston  of  Harris. 
Buchanan  of  Scurry.Lattimore. 


Caldwell. 

Collins. 

Dayton. 

Dean. 

Decherd. 

Floyd. 

Gibson. 

Henderson. 


McNealus. 

Page. 

Robbins. 

Smith. 

Strickland. 

Suiter. 

Westbrook. 


Nays — 10. 


Alderdice. 

Bailey. 

Clark. 

Hall. 

Harley. 


Hopkins. 

Hudspeth. 

McCollum. 

Parr. 

Woodward. 


The  Chair:  There  being  21  ayes 
and  10  noes,  the  Article  is  sustained. 


The  Chair:  The  Secretary  will 
read  Article  19. 

The  Secretary  (reading):  “Arti- 
cle 19.  The  Governor  of  Texas  has 
sought  to  use  the  power  of  his  office 
to  control  members  of  the  Board  of 
Regents.  The  chairman  of  the  Board 
of  Regents  had  become  surety  on  a 
bail  bond,  the  case  pending  in  Jones 
County,  Texas.  The  defendant  es- 
caped and  judgment  was  secured  on 
said  bond  in  the  sum  of  $5000 
against  the  principal  and  sureties, 
one  of  the  sureties  being  Wilbur  P. 
Allen,  chairman  of  the  Board  of  Re- 
gents of  the  University  of  Texas.  He 
applied  to  the  Governor  of  Texas  for 
tbe  remission  of  the  judgment,  which 
he  would  have  had  to  pay,  and  with- 
out good  reason  but  only  to  influence 
his  action  as  a member  of  the  Board 
of  Regents,  James  E.  Ferguson  as 
Governor  remitted  the  forfeiture  of 
$5000,  which,  except  for  such  action 
of  James  E.  Ferguson,  would  have 
belonged  to  the  people  of  Texas.” 

The  Chair:  Senators,  the  question 


Reason  for  Vote. 

(The  following  written  reasons 
were  sent  up  by  members  of  the 
Court: ) 

I vote  “Aye”  on  Article  19  be- 
cause I cannot  believe  that  the  for- 
feiture against  Wilbur  P.  Allen 
would  have  been  remitted  except 
for  the  purpose  of  controlling  his 
action  on  the  Board  of  Regents. 
Judge  Fiset’s  statement  establishes 
the  fact  that  Mr.  Allen  thought  very 
highly  of  Dr.  Vinson  until  the  for- 
feiture was  remitted  and  then  Dr. 
Vinson  was  a failure.  The  circum- 
stances sustained  the  belief  that 
this  forfeiture  was  remitted  for  a 
purpose. 

BEE. 

I vote  “no”  on  Article  19  of  the 
impeachment  charges  preferred 
against  the  Governor,  for  the  reason 
that  the  proof  does  not  show  that  the 
remission  of  the  forfeiture  was  made 
to  Wilbur  P.  Allen  for  any  improper 


914 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


purpose  whatever.  In  fact  the  evi- 
dence wholly  disproves  this  charge. 
Evidence  was  offered  by  the  House 
Managers  to  show  that  Wilbur  P. 
Allen  changed  his  position  with  ref- 
erence to  Dr.  Vinson’s  fitness  for  the* 
presidency  of  the  University  of  Texas 
immediately  thereafter,  but  Dr.  Vin- 
son himself  testified  that  in  August,, 
long  after  the  remission  of  this  for- 
feiture was  made,  Wilbur  P.  Allen 
was  more  enthusiastic  over  his  qual- 
ifications for  the  presidency  than  he 
ever  had  been. 

CLARK. 

Mr.  President,  it  being  inconceiv- 
able to  me  why  Mr.  Allen  should  have 
been  appointed  except  for  one  rea- 
son, and  that  is  that  he  could  be 
used,  and  in  view  of  his  statement  to 
Mr.  Fiset,  and  believing  that  he  was 
used,  I vote  “aye.” 

PAGE. 

The  Chair:  The  Secretary  will 
read  Article  20. 

The  Secretary  (reading):  “Arti- 
cle 20.  That  the  said  James  E. 
Ferguson  has  sought  to  improperly 
influence  the  courts  of  Texas  in  mat- 
ters in  which  he  had  a personal 
interest,  first: 

(a)  After  he  had  received  from 
the  Thirty-fifth  Legislature  at  itls 
Regular  Session  a bill  passed  by  that 
Legislature  for  the  increase  of  the 
salaries  of  certain  judges,  among 
others  being  those  of  the  judges  of 
the  Supreme  Court  of  Texas,  he 
wrote  them  a letter  calling  their  at- 
tention to  certain  provisions  of  the 
Constitution  of  Texas,  and  after  they 
had  ruled  against  him,  vetoed  the 
bill  and  gave  as  one  of  his  reasons 
the  fact  that  that  court  had  allowed 
him  no  more  than  $4,000  salary. 

(b)  That  while  the  case  of  Mad- 
dox vs.  Dayton  Lumber  Company 
was  pending  in  the  Court  of  Civil 
Appeals  at  Beaumont,  and  after  a 
motion  for  rehearing  had  been  over- 
ruled, and  in  a case  in  which  the 
Governor  was  a party,  and  the  de- 
cision of  said  court  being  against 
him  and  his  associates,  he  wrote  to 
one  of  the  members  of  that  court 
who  had  asked  an  endorsement  by 
him,  declining  to  endorse  him,  and 
bitterly  criticising  the  decision  of 
that  court  in  that  case,  and  mailed 
copies  of  the  letter  to  the  other 
members  of  that  court.  That  within 
a few  days  thereafter  his  attorneys 


filed  a second  motion  for  rehearing.” 

The  Chair:  Senators,  the  question 
is:  Shall  Article  20  be  sustained? 

Those  of  you  who  find  that  said  ar- 
ticle should  be  sustained  will  answer 
“aye”  as  your  names  are  called; 
those  who  fail  to  so  find  will  answer 
“no.”  The  Secretary  will  call  the 
roll. 

(The  Secretary  thereupon  called 
the  roll,  the  vote  being  as  follows, 
to  wit) : 

Yeas — 16. 

Alderdice.  ' Johnston  of  Harris. 

Buchanan  of  Bell.  Lattimore. 
Buchanan  of  Scurry.McNealus. 


Caldwell. 

Page. 

Collins. 

Robbins. 

Dean. 

Smith. 

Floyd. 

Suiter. 

Gibson. 

Westbrook. 

Nays — 15. 

Bailey. 

Hopkins. 

Bee. 

Hudspeth. 

Clark. 

Johnson  of  Hall. 

Dayton. 

McCollum. 

Decherd. 

Parr. 

Hall. 

Strickland. 

Harley. 

Woodward. 

Henderson. 

The  Chair:  There  being  16  ayes 
and  15  noes,  the  article  is  not  sus- 
tained. 

r 

Reasons  for  Vote. 

(The  following  written  reasons 
were  sent  up  by  members  of  the 
Court) : 

I vote  *‘No”  f on  Article  20. 
While  I condemn  the  action  of  the 
Governor  in  writing  th,e  letters 
complained  of  to  the  Supreme  Court 
and  the  Court  of  Civil  Appeals  at 
Beaumont,  yet  standing  alone  I do 
not  believe  such  action  is  impeach- 
able. 

BEE. 

I vote  “no”  on  Article  20  of  the  im- 
peachment charges  preferred  against 
Governor  James  E.  Ferguson,  for  the 
reason  that  in  writing  the  letters  that 
the  Governor  did  write  he  was  acting 
in  the  exercise  of  his  rights.  The 
Supreme  Court  of  this  State  is  not 
so  distant  from  the  people  that  they 
can  not  receive  letters  and  sugges- 
tions about  authorities  and  provisions* 
of  the  Constitution  in  cases  which 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


915 


they  have  under  consideration.  This 
charge  is  wholly  disproved. 

CLARK. 

$ 

Believing  as  I do  that  meddling 
with  the  courts  is  the  most  repre- 
hensible conduct  that  a chief  execu- 
tive could  be  guilty  of,  I vote  “aye.” 

COLLINS. 

Believing  that  the  courts  can  al- 
ways take  care  of  themselves  and 
believing  that  any  person  has  a right 
to  write  to  the  courts  of  this  State, 
I vote  “no.” 

DAYTON. 

I desire  to  state  that  I believe  that 
any  citizen  of  the  State,  having  a 
suit  in  court,  even  without  the  inter- 
vention of  his  attorney,  has  a right 
to  write  to  the  court,  but  do  not 
believe  that  the  Governor,  while  his 
cdse  was  pending  before  the  Supreme 
Court,  should  write  any  such  letter, 
which  leads  me  to  believe  it  was  an 
attempt  to  influence  them.  I say 
frankly  the  same  thing  in  regard  to 
the  case  in  the  Court  of  Civil  Ap- 
peals. I think  the  courts  of  this 
State  should  be  held  aloof  from 
matters  of  this  kind.  The  chief  ex- 
ecutive should  not  infringe  upon  the 
prerogatives  of  the  courts.  I regard 
it  as  a dangerous  thing,  and  vote 
“aye.” 

PAGE. 

“I  vote  “no”  on  charge  20.  I 
think  the  Governor’s  conduct  highly 
improper,  but  not  a matter  for  which 
he  should  be  impeached. 

STRICKLAND. 

The  Chair:  The  Secretary  will 
read  Article*  T21. 

The  Secretary  (reading):  “Arti- 
cle 21.  That  during  the  session  of 
the  Thirty-fifth  Legislature  James  E. 
Eerguson,  as  Governor  of  Texas,  sub- 
mitted to  the  Senate  of  Texas  the 
nomination  of  C.  W.  Woodman  for 
confirmation  as  Labor  Commissioner. 
The  Senate  of  Texas  refused  to  con- 
firm the  nomination.  That  the  Gov- 
ernor then  submitted  to  the  Senate 
of  Texas  the  name  of  Frank  Swor, 
deputy  under  C.  W.  Woodman,  which 
nomination  was  confirmed  by  the 
Senate.  But  that  he  has  failed  and 
refused  to  qualify,  and  more  than  a 
reasonable  time  has  elapsed  since  his 
appointment,  but  he  has  continued 
to  a^ct  as  deputy,  and  the  said  C.  W. 


Woodman  has  continued  to  act  as 
Commissioner.  And  knowing  these 
facts,  Governor  Ferguson  has  failed 
and  refused  to  make  an  appointment, 
and  C.  W.  Woodman,  although  con- 
firmation was  refused  him  by  the 
Senate  of  Texas  many  months  ago, 
continued  to  hold  the  office  and  draw 
the  pay.  That  it  was  the  duty  of 
the  Governor,  when  the  Senate  re- 
fused to  confirm  C.  W.  Woodman, 
to  make  another  nomination,  and  in 
case  the  nominee  refused  to  qualify, 
that  it  was  his  duty  to  make  another 
appointment;  but  that  he  has  failed 
and  refused  to  do  so  in  defiance  of 
the  Constitution  of  Texas  and  his 
oath  of  office.” 

The  Chair:  Senators,  the  question 
is:  Shall  Article  21  be  sustained? 

Those  of  you  who  find  that  said  ar- 
ticle should  be  sustained  will  answer 
“aye”  as  your  names  are  called; 
those  who  do  not  so  find  will  answer 
“no.”  The  Secretary  will  call  the 
roll. 

Senator  Bee:  Mr.  President. 

The  Chair:  Senator  Bee. 

Senator  Bee:  I think  it  might  be 
proper  at  this  time  for  the  Chair  to 
admonish  those  in  the  Chamber  to 
remain  quiet  until  the  Senate  fin- 
ishes. 

The  Chair:  The  Chair  endorses 
the  suggestion  made  by  Senator  Bee, 
and  we  admonish  all  in  the  Chamber 
and  the  galleries  to  be  quiet  until 
we  finish  the  present  work. 

(The  Secretary  thereupon  called 
the  roll,  the  vote  being  as  follows, 
to  wit) : 

Yeas — 2. 

Buchanan  of  Bell.  McNealus. 


Nays — 29. 


Alderdice. 

Hopkins. 

Bailey. 

Hudspeth. 

Bee. 

Johnson  of  Hall. 

Buchanan  of  Scurr 

y.  Johnston  of  Harris. 

Caldwell. 

Lattimore. 

Clark. 

McCollum. 

Collins. 

Page. 

Dayton. 

Parr. 

Dean. 

Robbins. 

Decherd. 

Smith. 

Floyd. 

Strickland. 

Gibson. 

Suiter. 

Hall. 

Westbrook. 

Harley. 

Henderson. 

Woodward. 

916 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


The  Chair:  There  being  2 ayes 
and  29  noes,  the  article  is  not  sus- 
tained. 

Reasons  for  Vote. 

(The  following  written  reasons 
were  sent  up  by  members  of  the 
Court) : 

I do  not  consider  there  is  any  merit 
in  Article  21.  While  Mr.  Woodman, 
ought  to  have  vacated  the  office 
when  Mr.  Swor  was  removed, 
there  is  no  evidence  involved  in  the 
Governor. 

BEE. 

I vote  “no”  on  Article  21  of  the  im- 
peachment charges  preferred  against, 
Governor  James  E.  Ferguson,  for  the 
reason  that  Frank  Swor  did  not  qual- 
ify in  order  to  permit  C.  W.  Wood- 
man to  carry  out  some  matters  of 
policy  in  the  office.  When  those  mat- 
ters were  arranged  Swor  did  qualify. 
This  charge  is  wholly  unsustained. 

CLARK. 

I want  to  incorporate  in  the  Jour- 
nal, as  a matter  of  record,  my  rea- 
sons for  voting  against  the  above 
Article  of  Impeachment.  This  reason 
being  that  I do  not  believe  the  of- 
fense complained  of  would  justify 
the  severe  punishment  of  removal 
from  office,  although  I feel  that  the 
Governor  has  misused  the  authority 
vested  in  him  and  has  committed  a 
gross  error,  it  hardly  Justifies  pun- 
ishment above  suggested. 

ROBBINS. 

Believing  that  the  part  of  this 
charge  as  to  the  Governor’s  action 
is  not  impeachable,  I therefore  vote 
“no.” 

SUITER. 

I vote  to  sustain  a demurrer  to 
charge  21,  not  believing  it  an  im- 
peachable offense  if  proven. 

STRICKLAND. 

( Senator  McCollum  sent  up  the 
following  reasons  for  his  votes  on  all 
the  articles) : 

In  reaching  conclusions,  as  well  as 
rendering  a verdict  on  the  issues 
involved  in  the  case  now  at  its  con- 
clusion, it  is  deemed  in  order  to  pre- 
sent some  statements  to  the  voters 
of  the  Eleventh  Senatorial  District 
and  to  the  people  of  the  State  as 
well,  for  while  a State  Senator’s  im- 


mediate duty  is  to  his  constituency, 
yet  there  are  instances  where  the 
scope  of  that  duty  goes  beyond  local 
lines  and  is  for  the  people  at  large, 
notably  in  an  instance  where  there 
is  a challenge  of  conscience  and  duty 
as  is  the  case  now. 

It  is  known  to  many  that  I en- 
tered upon  my  duty  as  a member  of 
the  Court  of  Impeachment  with  dis- 
tinctive friendly 1 feeling  toward  the 
Respondent  and  with  earnest  desire 
to  see  him  have  the  fairest  trial,  pos- 
sible, and  cherishing  the  hope  that 
the  developments  of  that  trial  would 
justify  acquittal  on  all  tho  counts. 
That  statement  may  be  made  fully 
and  freely,  even  though  it  was 
known  to  many  that  despite  the  sen- 
timent of  friendship  and  sympathy 
here  alluded  to  I did  not  agree  with 
the  Respondent  as  to  the  veto  of  the 
University  appropriation,  to  which 
feature  of  the  case  I shall  make  brief 
reference  later  on.  All  right  think- 
ing men  who  have  ever  had  the  ex- 
perience of  friendships  that  are 
pleasant  and  appreciated  can  readily 
understand  the  emotions  that  must 
have  developed  for  more  than  one 
Senator  no  less  than  myself  while 
sitting  as  a member  of  this  Court. 
If  reference  is  made  here  and  now 
to  these  phases  of  the  matter,  it  is 
simply  to  emphasize  the  situation 
that  ensued  while  listening  to  the 
testimony,  and  in  now  reaching  a 
conclusion  as  to  a verdict  all  men 
who  have  the  right  concepts  of  what 
not  only  personal  friendship  means, 
but  the  force  of  association  with  men 
in  politics  and  in  legislation,  can 
analyze  and  understand  this  situa- 
tion. It  would  have  been  one  of  the 
most  grateful  experiences  of  life  to 
feel  warranted  at  the  close  of  this 
case,  that  is  destined  to  be  historical 
and  far-reaching,  and  I hope  whole- 
some in  its  influences  and  tendencies, 
to  join  in  a verdict  of  acquittal  on 
all  the  counts.  As  I understand  the 
case  now  and  in  the  light  of  con- 
science and  judgment  no  less  than 
duty,  it  is  not  my  privilege  to  render 
such  a verdict. 

“The  issues  and  the  principles  that 
are  involved  in  this  case  are  to  my 
mind  among  the  gravest  and  most 
important  that  have  been  passed  on, 
by  any  body  of  Texans,  whether  sit- 
ting as  jurors  in  our  courts  or  as 
members  of  legislative  courts.  They 
involve  civic  duty  and  responsibility 
and  they  touch  the  principle  of  truth 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


917 


and  righteousness  with  a force  that 
is  not  to  be  ignored.  It  has  been  tho 
good  fortune  and  the  pride  of  our 
people  that  for  so  many  years  with 
one  nolitical  party  dominant  during 
all  those  years  in  the  conduct  and 
control  of  State  affairs;  with  that, 
same  political  dominance  and  control 
going  out  into  all  the  avenues  of  civic 
life,  finding  expression  in  all  phases 
of  local  government,  that  that  party 
(of  which  I have  been  privileged  to 
be  an  active  even  if  a modest  mem- 
ber) has  given  State  and  people  hon- 
est and  efficient  government  and  ad- 
ministration of  public  affairs.  It 
has  been  our  pride  and  good  fortune 
that  during  all  these  years  no  in- 
stance, at  least  of  material  nature, 
has  developed  to  challenge  our  boast, 
or  to  mar  the  prestige  of  the  political 
element  exercising  control.  Not  un- 
til now  has  an  instance  arisen  that 
compels  us  to  give  pause,  to  take  cog- 
nizance of  the  gravity  of  the  issues 
and  decide  on  the  measure  and  char- 
acter of  duty.  It  fell  to  the  Senate 
of  Texas,  it  was  the  fate  cf  the  men 
who  compose  that  body,  to  face  and 
deal  with  this  issue  and  all  that  it 
involves,  taking  into  account  the  cost 
and  the  culpability  if  there  shall  be 
failure  or  lack  of  readiness  to  meet 
duty  as  we  see  it.  As  the  case  ap- 
peals to  and  commands  my  judgment, 
there  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  the  re- 
sponsibility and  the  duty  of  the  Sen- 
ate, and  so  believing  I have  voted 
to  sustain  more  than  one  of  the 
charges.  In  thus'  doing,  I am  trying 
to  meet  the  full  measure  of  responsi- 
bility to  conscience,  to  judgment  and 
to  the  interests  of  my  people  and 
State.  I have  refrained,  and  as  I be- 
lieve with  good  reason,  from  any  ef-4 
fort  to  discuss  the  legal  questions 
that  find  place  in  this  case.  There 
are  able  lawyers  in  the  Senate  who, 
it  may  be  believed,  are  in  all  respects 
equipped  t$  deal  with  these  features 
of  the  matter,  and  to  an  extent  that 
will  no  doubt  meet  the  views  of  that 
element  of  our  citizenship  that  at- 
taches so  much  weight  to  phases  of 
that  nature.  It  has  been  my  duty  to 
consider  in  most  careful  manner 
what  may  be  called  the  moral  as- 
pects of  the  case,  issues  that  chal- 
lenge the  interest  and  attention  of 
our  people,  and  that  enter  into  every 
phase  of  this  most  notable  and  de- 
plorable episode.  In  considering 
these  issues  and  what  they  may  or 


do  involve,  one  is  bound  to  givq 
thought  to  the  needs  and  interests 
of  tomorrow  as  well  as  of  today.  If, 
there  is  any  lesson  in  this  case  its 
influences  and  its  benefits  should  be 
as  much  for  those  who  come  after 
us  as  for  those  who  are  here  now. 
Every  juror,  weighing  and  consider- 
ing these  questions,  must  have  felt 
the  force  of  this  phase  of  the  matter. 
The  trial  and  its  developments 
brought  opportunity  and  duty  to  de- 
clare to  our  own  people  and  to  the 
people  of  other  commonwealths  that 
in  our  state  we  feel  more  than  ever 
that  public  office,  is  of  the  highest 
import  and  calls  for  performance  of 
complete  character,  in  line  with  the 
standards  that  we  have  set  for  civic 
and  individual  righteousness.  It 
will  be,  or  .it  should  be  known  from 
this  day,  and  let  us  hope  for  all  time, 
that  the  man  who  seeks  and  who  se*i 
cures  office  in  Texas  is  to  measure 
up  to  and  be  judged  by  standards 
here  alluded  to — honest  and  faithful 
performance  of  public  duty,  mindful 
at  all  times  and  in  all  emergencies  of 
the  spirit  and  the  letter  of  the  Con- 
stitution anV  the  laws  that  are  based 
on  that  instrument.  ' It  is  not  too 
much  to  hope  that  this  episode  in  our 
history,  so  deplorable  and  even  tragic 
in  many  of  its  features,  must  have 
the  wholesome  and  enduring  in- 
fluence here  alluded  to.  If  that  shall 
be  the  outcome,  it  may  be  believed 
that  every  Senator  who  has  had  part 
in  rendering  this  judgment,  no  mat- 
ter how  much  of  regret  he  may  have 
felt  at  the  necessity  for  such  a duty, 
will  feel  that  his  verdict  will  have 
valuable  fruitage  for  the  people  of 
this  day  and  time,  for  those  who 
come  after  us  and  for  our  State  and 
institutions.  Those  who  know  me 
best  at  my  home  and  in  the  district 
I have  the  honor  to  represent,  will 
not  need  to  be  told  that  in  reaching 
these  conclusions  there  has  been  no 
recogntion  of  any  influence  of  ex- 
traneous nature,  this  despite  the  ef- 
forts that  were  made  along  that  line, 
and  which  I have  relegated  to  for- 
getfulness believing  that  in  the  main 
they  were  the  results  of  thoughtless- 
ness more  than  of  intent  that  would 
give  offense.  I had  no  ambition,  nor 
incentive  or  purpose  save  to  reach  an 
honest  judgment.  It  is  well  known 
that  in  my  long  life  in  the  district 
I have  sought  public  life  or  office  so 
rarely  that  my  life  has  been  excep- 


918 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


tional  in  that  respect,  and  therefore 
there  is  no  end  of  political  or  per- 
sonal nature  to  be  achieved,  nor  have 
I allowed  myself  to  think  for  one 
moment  of  what  any  man,  any  ele- 
ment of  our  citizenship  may  think 
or  say  of  the  course  pursued.  The 
only  aspiration  has  been  to  do  right, 
to  follow  duty  as  it  manifested  for 
me,  and  in  thus  doing  to  serve  the 
best  interests  of  State,  of  people  and 
of  society — and  the  result,  whatever 
they  may  be,  are  a matter  of  abso- 
lutely no  moment  so  far  as  they  may 
or  do  touch  me  personally.  Natur- 
ally there  is  some  hope,  that  the  peo- 
ple who  have  honored  me  by  send- 
ing me  to  the  Texas  Senate  may  be 
able  to  approve,  and  in  all  sincerity, 
the  course  pursued.  But  if  it  is 
otherwise,  so  be  it.  The  verdict  and 
the  lesson  it  holds  and  will  hold  are 
essential,  as  I honestly  believe,  for 
maintenance  of  the  real  interests  of 
our  people  and  State,  no  less  than  the 
prestige  of  the  commonwealth. 

“There  is  no  satisfaction,  no  grat- 
ification, in  seeing  any  person  sub- 
jected to  suffering  or  humiliation, 
much  less  a friend,  and  I am  not 
ashamed  in  closing  this  statement 
to  give  utterance  to  my  profound 
sympathy  for  the  man  who  has  thus 
been  made  a means  to  an  end  that  is 
justified  on  grounds  of  highest  pub- 
iic  policy  and  right  thinking,  and  my 
one  regret  in  rendering  the  verdict 
is  that  its  terms  can  not  be  made,  as 
to  some  important  phases,  less  rig- 
orous than  the  law  seems  to  permit, 
for  I have  no  desire  to  see  the  State 
or  society  exact  more  from  the  Re- 
spondent than  may  seem  just  and 
right,  all  the  circumstances  con-1 
sidered.” 

The  Chair:  That  concludes  the 
articles.  What  is  the  pleasure  of  the 
Court? 

Senator  Bailey:  Mr.  President. 

The  Chair:  The  Senator  from 
DeWitt. 

Senator  Bailey:  I desire  to  send 
up  the  following  simple  resolution, 
and  ask  that  it  be  read  in  the  Court 
of  Impeachment,  and  that  it  be  report- 
ed to  the  Senate  for  such  action  as 
the  Senate  may  see  fit  to  take  upon 
it,  and  that  it  lie  upon  the  table  of 
the  Senate — of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Senate  subject  to  be  called  up  at  the 
pleasure  of  the  Senate. 

The  Chair:  The  Senator  from 
DeWitt  sends  up  the  following  simple 


resolution.  Let  the  resolution  be  read. 

The  Secretary  (Reading):  “Court 
Resolution  No.  1.  Resolved,  that  on 
Tuesday,  September  24,  1917,  at  12 
o’clock  m.,  the  Senate  of  Texas,  sitting 
as  a Court  of  Impeachment,  proceed  to 
pronounce  judgment  in  the  matter  of 
the  impeachment  of  James  E.  Fergu- 
son, Respondent,  on  such  of  the 
charges  of  impeachment  preferred 
against  him  by  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, as  have  been  sustained  by 
the  Senate,  sitting  as  a Court  of  Im- 
peachment, and  that  the  Committee  on 
Civil  Jurisprudence  of  the  Senate,  pre- 
pare said  judgment  and  submit  the 
same  to  the  Senate  on  Monday,  Sep- 
tember 23,  1917,  after  the  morning 
call  is  concluded.” 

BAILEY. 

Senator  Decherd:  Mr.  President. 

The  Chair:  Senator  Decherd. 

Senator  Decherd:  I wish  .to  correct 
an  error  there  in  the  dates.  Monday 
will  be  the  24th  instead  of  the  23rd, 
and  Tuesday  will  be  the  25th. 

The  Chair:  Tuesday  would  be  the 
25th,  it  s§ems,  Senator. 

Senator  Bailey:  Well,  I ask,  sir, 
to  be  allowed  to  change  that. 

Senator  McNealus:  Mr.  President. 

The  Chair:  The  Senator  from  Dal- 
las. 

Senator  McNealus:  May  I ask  a 
point  of  information? 

The  Chair:  State  the  point. 

Senator  McNealus:  In  making  this 
resolution,  do  I understand  that 
is  nothing  in  this  resolution  which 
could  be  construed  as  deciding  the 
judgment  to  be  entered  by  the  Court, 
in  so  far  as  sustaining  the  articles  is 
concerned 

The  Chair:  No,  the  Court  has  al- 
ready sustained  the  articles. 

Senator  McNealus:  The  Chair 

rules  now  that  the  articles  have  been 
sustained? 

The  Chair:  The  Chair  announced, 
as  each  article  was  sustained,  that  it 
was  sustained,  as  the  votes  were 
taken. 

Senator  McNealus:  Then  is  that 
understood? 

The  Chair:  The  Chair  does  not 
conceive  that  it  is  necessary  to  an- 
nounce again  the  result  of  the  votes 
on  the  several  articles.  The  results 
were  announced  as  each  article  was 
voted  on. 

Senator  McNealus:  What  I wish  to 
know  from  the  Chair  is  this, — if 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


919 


James  E.  Ferguson  is  now  in  the 
attitude  of  having  been  officially  and 
judicially  impeached. 

The  Chair:  The  House  presented 
articles  of  impeachment,  and  the  Sen- 
ate has  sustained  ten  of  the  articles 
of  impeachment,  and  that  has  already 
been  declared  by  the  Chair. 

Senator  McNealus:  That  means 
conviction,  does  it? 

The  Chair:  Yes,  sir,  it  does  so  in 
the  opinion  of  the  Chair.  The  Sena- 
tor from  DeWitt  asks  that  this  reso- 
lution lie  on  the  table  or  be  reported 
to  the  Senate  for  action. 

Senator  Lattimore:  Mr.  President, 
I will  ask  that  the  Senator  from  De- 
Witt  yield  for  a moment. 

The  Chair:  Does  the  Senator  from 
DeWitt  yield  to  the  Senator  from  Tar- 
arnt? 

Senator  Bailey:  I yield. 

Senator  Lattimore:  I understand 
from  your  resolution — 

Senator  Bailey:  A little  louder. 

Senator  Lattimore:  Do  you  mean 
the  regular  Committee  on  Rules? 

Senator  Hudspeth:  Do  you  mean 
the  reglar  Committee  on  Rules? 

Senator  Bailey:  I suggest  that  in 
the  resolution.  I thought  we  could 
adopt  that  in  the  Senate  when  we  go 
back  to  the  Senate.  I am  not  par- 
ticular wedded  to  that.  I didn’t  like 
to  have  the  Committee  on  Civil  Juris- 
prudence named  because  I am  the 
Chairman  and  you  are  the  Vice 
Chairman  of  that  Committee,  and  i 
thought  modesty  might  forbid  that. 
(Laughter.) 

The  Chair:  Let  us  have  order. 

Senator  Bailey:  But  I have  no  ob- 
jection. 

Senator  Lattimore:  The  informa- 
tion that  I wanted  from  the  Senator 
is,  the  Senate  has  appointed  a special 
Committee  on  Rules,  of  which  you  are 
a member,  and  the  Senate  has  a regu- 
lar Committee  on  Rules. 

Senator  Bailey:  I will  state  to  the 
Senator  from  Tarrant  that  I had 
thought  the  work  of  that  Committee 
was  over  when  the  Committee  finished 
that  work.  I have  no  objection. 

Senator  Lattimore:  You  have 

reference  to  the  regular  Committee  on 
Rules  of  the  Senate,  then? 

Senator  Bailey:  Yes,  sir.  If  the 
Senator  desires  to  amend  that,  I have 
no  objection. 

Senator  Gibson:  Does  the  Senator 
from  DeWitt  yield? 


The  Chair:  Does  the  Senator  from 
DeWitt  yield? 

Senator  Bailey:  I yield. 

Senator  Gibson:  Do  I understand 
you,  Senator,  to  move  that  this  reso- 
lution lie  on  the  table?  At  this  time 
I will  say  to  the  Senator  from  De- 
Witt that  it  is  presented  to  the 
Court. 

Senator  Bailey:  It  is  offered  in 
open  Court  on  the  verdict  that  has 
been  rendered  here,  and  I ask  that 
it  be  reported  to  the  Senate,  to  be 
acted  on  by  the  Senate  and  let  the 
Senate  conclude. 

Senator  Gibson:  I say,  you  ask 
that  this  resolution  be  reported  to 
the  Senate? 

Senator  Bailey:  Yes,  sir. 

(The  written  resolution  proposed 
by  Senator  Bailey,  as  finally  sent  up 
to  the  Chair,  is  as  follows) : 

Resolved,  That  on  Tuesday,  Sep- 
tember' 25,  T917,  at  12  o’clock  m., 
the  Senate  of  Texas,  sitting  as  a 
Court  of  Impeachment,  proceed  to 
pronounce  judgment  in  the  matter 
of  the  impeachment  of  James  E.  Fer- 
guson, upon  the  said  James  E.  Fer- 
guson, Respondent,  on  such  of  the 
charges  of  impeachment  preferred 
against  him  by  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, as  have  been  sustained  by 
the  Senate  sitting  as  a Court  of  Im- 
peachment, and  that  the  Committee 
on  Civil  Jurisprudence  of  the  Senate, 
prepare  said  judgment  and  submit 
the  same  to  the  Senate  on  Monday, 
September  24,  1917,  immediately 

after  the  morning  call  is  concluded. 

BAILEY. 

Senator  Hudspeth:  Now,  Mr. 

President,  I move  that  the  session  of 
the  Court  do  now  adjourn. 

j- ne  Chair:  If  the  Senator  from 
El  Paso  will  yield,  the  Chair  would 
suggest  that  the  Chair  has  to  pro- 
nounce the  judgment  on  the  vote. 

Senator  Bailey:  Mr.  President,  I 
move  that  we  recess  until  10  o’clock 
Monday  morning. 

Senator  Gibson:  I will  say  to  the 
Senator  from  DeWitt,  if  he  will 
yield — 

The  Chair:  Does  the  Senator 
yield? 

Senator  Bailey:  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Gibson:  That  the  report 
of  the  Senate  has  not  yet  been 
adopted. 

Senator  Bailey:  Well,  I move  that 
the  Court  recess  until  10  o’clock 
Monday  morning,  and  I suppose  we 


920 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


will  go  back  immediately  into  the 
Senate. 

Senator  Hudspeth:  That  was 

really  the  motion  I intended  to  make 
— -that  we  recess  until  10  o’clock 
Monday  morning,  and  not  adjourn. 

The  Chair:  The  Senaotr  from  El 
Paso  then  moves  that  the  Court  re- 
cess until  10  o’clock  Monday  morn- 
ing. Those  favoring  the  motion  will 
signify  it  by  saying  “aye”;  those  op- 
posed “no.”  The  ayes  have  it,  and 
the  Court  will  recess  until  10  o’clock 
Monday  morning. 

(The  Court  thereupon  recessed 
until  10  o’clock  Monday  morning, 
September  24,  1917.) 


In  the  Senate. 

President  Pro  Tern.  Dean  in  the 
Chair  at  4:45  o’clock  p.  m. 


Simple  Resolution  No.  23. 

(By  unanimous  cousent.) 

Resolved,  That  on  Tuesday,  Sep- 
tember 25,  1917,  at  12  o’clock  m., 
the  Senate  of  Texas,  sitting  as  a 
Court  of  Impeachment,  proceed  to 
pronounce  judgment  in  the  matter 
of  the  impeachment  of  James  E.  Fer- 
guson, upon  the  said  James  E.  Fer- 
guson, Respondent,  on  such  of  the 
charges  of  impeachment  preferred 
against  him  by  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, as  have  been  sustained  by 
the  Senate,  sitting  as  a Court  of  Im- 
peachment, and  that  the  Committee 
on  Civil  Jurisprudence  of  the  Sen- 
ate, prepare  said  judgment  and  sub- 
mit the  same  to  the  Senate  on  Mon- 
day, September  24,  1917,  immediate- 
ly after  the  morning  call  is  con- 
cluded. 

BAILEY. 

The  resolution  was  read  and 
adopted. 


Free  Conference  Committee  Report 
on  Senate  Bill  No.  8. 

Hon.  W.  L.  Dean,  President  Pro 
Tempore  of  the  Senate,  and  Hon. 
F.  O.  Fuller,  Speaker  of  the  House 
of  Representatives. 

Sirs:  Your  Free  Conference  Com- 


mittee selected  and  appointed  to  ad- 
just the  differences  between  the  Sen- 
ate and  the  House  on  Senate  Bill  No. 
8,  have  had  the  same  under  consid- 
eration, and  beg  leave  to  report  as 
follows,  to  wit: 

We  recommend  that  the  Senate 
concur  in  the  House  amendments  to 
Senate  Bill  No.  8. 

Respectfully  submitted, 
HENDERSON, 
JOHNSTON  of  Harris, 
BAILEY, 

HARLEY, 

On  the  part  of  the  Senate. 
HOLLAND, 

JOHNSON, 

FISHER, 

MENDELL, 

DUDLEY, 

On  the  part  of  the  House. 

The  foregoing  report  was  laid  be- 
fore the  Senate,  read  and  on  motion 
of  Senator  Henderson  the  same  was 
adopted. 


Adjournment. 

At  5 o’clock  p.  m.  the  Senate,  on 
motion  of  Senator  Clark,  adjourned 
until  10  o’clock  Monday  morning. 


APPENDIX. 

Committee  Reports. 

Committee  Room, 
Austin,  Texas,  Sept.  22,  1917. 
Hon.  W.  L.  Dean,  President  Pro 

Tern,  of  the  Senate. 

Sir:  We,  your  Committee  on  Ed- 
ucation Affairs,  to  whom  was  re- 
ferred 

S.  B.  No.  31,  A bill  to  be  entitled 
“An  Act  to  amend  Chapter  63,  Lo- 
cal and  Special  Laws  of  the  State  of 
Texas  passed  at  the  Regular  Session 
of  the  Thirty-fifth  Legislature, 
which  chapter  is  an  Act  to  amend 
Section  2,  Chapter  75,  Special  Laws 
of  the  Regular  Session  of  the  Thir- 
tieth Legislature  of  1907,  being  an 
Act  to  authorize,  enable  and  permit 
the  territory  within  the  boundaries 
of  the  town  of  Estelline  in  Hall 
County,  Texas,  and  other  lands  and 
territory  adjacent  thereto  to  incor- 
porate an  Independent  School  Dis- 
trict for  free  school  purposes  only, 
known  as  Estelline  Independent 


I 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


921 


School  District,  with  all  the  powers, 
rights  and  duties  of  independent 
school  districts  formed  by  incorpora- 
tion of  towns  and  villages  for  free 
school  purposes,  and  declaring  an 
emergency:  The  said  act  to  be 

amended  so  as  to  change  the  boun- 
daries thereof  leaving  certain  sec- 
tions of  land  out  of  the  said  Estel- 
line  Independent  School  District,  and 
declaring  an  emergency,” 

Have  had  the  same  under  consid- 
eration, and  beg  to  report  it  back 
to  the  Senate,  with  the  recommenda- 
tion that  it  do  pass  and  be  not 
printed. 

BEE,  Chairman. 

Committee  Room, 
Austin,  Texas,  Sept.  22,  1917. 

Hon.  W.  L.  Dean,  President  Pro 
Tempore  of  the  Senate. 

Sir:  Wie,  your  Committee  on  Pub- 
lic Health,  to  whom  was  referred 
S.  B.  No.  32,  A bill  to  be  entitled 
“An  Act  to  regulate  the  sale  of 
poisons,  providing  for  marking  and 
designating  the  packages  of  contain- 
ers, and  for  the  registration  of  the 
name  and  address  of  the  purchaser, 
requiring  that  all  records  be  kept  in 
well  bound  books,  separate  from  all 
other  records  to  be  designated  ‘Rec- 
ord of  Poison  Sales;’  designating 
what  poisons  are  meant,  prescribing 
a penalty  for  violations  of  this  Act, 
and  declaring  an  emergency,” 

Have  had  the  same  under  consid- 
eration and  I am  instructed  to  report 
the  same  back  to  the  Senate  with  the 
recommendation  that  it  do  pass  and 
be  not  printed,  but  printed  in  the 
Journal. 

McNEALUS,  Chairman. 

By  Smith.  S.  B.  No.  32. 

A BILL 
To  be  entitled 

An  Act  to  regulate  the  sale  of  pois- 
ons, providing  for  marking  and 
designating  the  packages  of  con- 
tainers, and  for  the  registration  of 
the  name  and  address  of  the  pur' 
chaser,  requiring  that  all  records 
be  kept  in  well  bound  books,  sepa- 
rate from  all  other  records  to  be 
designated  “Record  of  Poison 
Sales;”  designating  what  poisons 
are  meant,  prescribing  a penalty 
for  violations  of  this  Act,  and  de- 
claring an  emergency. 


Be  it  enacted  by  the  Legislature  of 

the  State  of  Texas: 

Section  1.  Every  person,  firm  or 
corporation  in  this  State  who  shall 
sell  any  of  the  poisons  hereinafter 
named  shall  be  required:  (a)  To 
keep  a permanently  bound  record  . in 
which  shall  be  recorded  at  the  time 
of  the  sale  the  name  and  address  of 
the  purchaser,  if  known  to  the  selT- 
er,  and  if  unknown  the  sale  shall 
not  be  made  until  'the  purchaser 
shall  be  identified  by  some  person 
who  is  known  to  the  seller,  and  the 
name  and  address  of  the  person  so 
identifying  the  purchaser  shall  be 
recorded  with  the  name  and  address 
of  the  purchaser,  and  the  name  and 
quantity  of  the  poison  purchased 
and  the  purpose  for  which  same  is 
to  be  used,  which  record  shall  at  all 
times  be  open  to  the  inspection  of 
all  officers  charged  with  the  enforce- 
ment of  law;  (b)  each  package  or 
container  must  be  marked  with  a 
label  containing  the  name  and  quan- 
tity of  the  poison  purchased  and  the 
word  “Poison”  printed  in  red  ink  in 
a conspicuous  place  on  the  label, 
which  label  shall  be  placed  on  every 
package  and  container  of  poison  sold. 

Sec.  2.  The  following  poisons 
shall  be  included  within  the  provis- 
ions of  this  Act:  Arsenic,  cyanide  of 
potassium,  hydrocyanic  acid,  co- 
caine, morphine,  strychnia,  and  all 
other  poisonous  vegetable  alkaloids 
and  their  salts,  oil  of  bitter  al- 
monds, containing  hydrocyanic  acid, 
opium  and  its  preparations,  except 
paragoric  and  such  others  as  con- 
tain less  than  two  gyains  of  opium 
to  the  ounce,  aconite,  belladonna, 
cantharides,  colchicum,  conium,  cot- 
ton root,  digitalis,  ergot,  hellebore, 
henbane,  phytolacca,  strophanthus, 
oil  of  tansy,  veratrum  viride  and 
their  pharmaceutical  preparations, 
arsenical  solutions,  carbolic  acid, 
chloral  hydrate,  chloroform,  cor- 
rosive sublimate,  creosote,  croton 
oil,  mineral  acids,  oxalic  acid,  paris 
green,  salts  of  lead,  salts  of  zinc, 
white  hellebore  or  any  drug,  chem- 
ical, or  preparation  which,  according 
to  standards  works  on  medicine  or 
materia  medica,  is  liable  to  be  de- 
structive to  adult  human  life  in 
quantities  of  sixty  grains  or  less. 

Sec.  3.  Any  person  who  shall  for 
himself  or  as  the  agent  o^  employe 
of  another  person,  firm  or  corpora- 
tion in  this  State,  sell,  give  or  de- 


922 


SENATE  JOURNAL. 


liver  to  another  without  having  com- 
plied with  the  provisions  of  this  Act 
shall  be  guilty  of  a misdemeanor  and 
upon  conviction  shall  be  fined  not 
less  than  $100  nor  more  than  $500, 
and  in  addition  shall  be  imprisoned 
in  the  county  jail  for  not  less  than 
20  days  nor  more  than  six  months. 

Sec.  4.  The  short  time  allotted 
for  the  passage  of  bills  in  the  present 
session  and  the  fact  that  there  is 


now  no  adequate  law  regulating  the 
sale  of  poisons,  and  that  human  life 
is  endangered  by  the  reckless  sale  of 
poisons,  creates  an  emergency  and  an 
imperative  public  necessity  that  the 
constitutional  rule  requiring  bills  to 
be  read  on  three  several  days  be 
suspended  and  that  this  Act  t&ke 
effect  and  be  in  force  from  and 
after  its  passage,  and  it  is  so  en- 
acted. 


Jilii  . ' • • •- 

■ ; hm  - 

: 30£  : 

or : - , 


3 0112  073155654 

# uj 


